State v. FRANCO NOVELTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
FAULKNER, Justice.
The writ of certiorari was granted because this was a case of first impression, affecting the license tax laws of this State. The primary question is whether a table which looks like a pool table, yet has a detachable slot for coins to collect the playing fee, and upon which a game of pool is played, is a pool table or is it a coin-operated machine? Is it to be taxed as a pool table as the State contends, or is it to be *46taxed as a “coin-operated machine”, as Franco contends. The State says in brief, “ . . . We do not believe that anyone who is familiar at all with pool…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Merriwether v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- Thompson v. Chilton CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Gotlieb v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
- State v. Burchfield Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- State v. CrenshawSupreme Court of Alabama · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ex Parte CSX Transp., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
- Ex Parte CSX Transp., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
- Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
- Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
- State v. FRANCO NOVELTY COMPANY, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.