Legal Opinion

State v. FRANCO NOVELTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 11, 1974No. SC 746PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Merriwether v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
  2. Thompson v. Chilton CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  3. Gotlieb v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
  4. State v. Burchfield Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  5. State v. CrenshawSupreme Court of Alabama · 1971

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ex Parte CSX Transp., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
  2. Ex Parte CSX Transp., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
  3. Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
  4. Fletcher v. Tuscaloosa Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
  5. State v. FRANCO NOVELTY COMPANY, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974

1 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