Legal Opinion

Mastoras v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 24, 1938No. 7 Div. 503PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

The writ of certiorari is denied, but we do not wish to be understood as approving the statement in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, used arguendo, that a “faro table” or “roulette table” is not a “contrivance, appliance, or invention” within the condemnation of the Act of July 25, 1931, Acts 1931, p. 806.

If the count of the indictment had averred: “The Grand Jury of said County charges that before the finding of this indict ment George Mastoras, whose name is unknown to the Grand Jury otherwise than as stated, did possess, keep, own, set up, operate, or conduct, or did permit to be set…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Barbee v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
  2. Ex Parte LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  3. Sullens v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2003
  4. Likos v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1938
  5. Stewart v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1991

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API