Legal Opinion

United States v. 10, More or Less, Digger Machines

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided June 9, 1952No. Nos. 8287(2), 8288(2)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HULEN, District Judge.

In these two cases plaintiff has seized a number of “Digger Machines” (10 in case 8287, and 9 in case 8288), under Public Law 906, 81st Congress, 2d Sess., § 7, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1177. By stipulation, the sole question now in issue is whether the machine comes within Section 1(a) (2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1171(a) (2):

“(a) The term ‘gambling device’ means—

ifc ij: sfc % ifc

“(2) any machine or mechanical device designed and manufactured to operate by means of insertion of a coin, token, or similar object and designed and manufactured so that when operated it may deliver, as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Boosalis v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. 24 Digger Merchandising MacHines Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
  2. United States v. Walter KorpanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
  3. Boies v. BartellArizona Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc. v. AshSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  5. United States v. Twenty-Eight "Mighty Payloader" Coin-Operated Gaming DevicesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API