Approximately Fifty-Nine Gambling Devices v. People Ex Rel. Burke
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bakke
This action was commenced below by petition of the district attorney of the Second Judicial District (City and County of Denver), as a proceeding in rem against “Approximately Fifty-nine Gambling Devices” — most of which were what is known in the trade as pinball machines — particularly requesting the court to issue a citation directed to the Wolf Sales Company, a corporation, and Al A. Roberts, also known ás Al A. Reiwitz, its manager and treasurer, to appear before the court to show cause, if any there be, why said devices should not be adjudged to be gambling devices and ordered destroyed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coffey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- J. B. Mullen & Co. v. MoseleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
- North River Insurance v. MilitelloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937
- Everhart v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Kite v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. One Hundred & Fifty-Eight Gaming DevicesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- State v. Pinball MacHinesAlaska Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. AppleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- State ex rel. Hanrahan v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1959
- Holliday v. Governor of State of South CarolinaDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1948
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.