Legal Opinion

United States v. Two-Hundred-Ninety-Four Various Gambling Devices

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 1990No. Civ. A. 85-297 ERIEPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COHILL, Chief Judge.

In August 1989, the late Judge Gerald J. Weber issued an extensive Opinion in this case, concluding that most of the video poker machines seized here were subject to forfeiture under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962, 15 U.S.C. § 1171 et seq. United States v. 294 Various Gambling Devices, 718 F.Supp. 1236 (W.D.Pa.1989). Upon Judge Weber’s untimely passing, this matter fell to the undersigned.

We will not repeat the facts or the procedural history of this case. The prior Opinion contains a clear, concise recitation. 718 F.Supp. at 1239-1241. Suffice it to say that this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Robert J. Ansani, Harvey Milner, John Edward Moore, Joseph J. Aiuppa and Ray JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
  2. United States v. 294 Various Gambling DevicesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. United States v. 24 Digger Merchandising MacHines Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
  4. United States v. One Hundred Thirty-Seven (137) Draw Poker-Type MacHines & Six (6) Slot MacHinesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1984
  5. United States v. Three (3) Trade BoostersDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. ConleyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. United States v. Two (2) Quarter Fall MacHinesDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API