Legal Opinion

Durant v. Bennett

District Court, W.D. South Carolina

Decided November 3, 1931No. 306PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GLENN, District Judge.

For the last several years the state of South Carolina has been peculiarly vigilant in its activities to enforce its criminal statutes directed against gambling devices. Particularly have these activities been directed against the operation of so-called slot machines which have been placed in the state and which are undoubtedly operated primarily as gambling devices. It appears that these machines are so constructed as to yield an enormous return to the owners and the local custodians with whom the owners place the machine. In that the machines, so far as outward…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. J. B. Mullen & Co. v. MoseleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Seignious v. LimehouseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
  5. Commonwealth v. Gaming ImplementsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. RicksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1949
  2. Moore v. BrettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  3. Shipman v. DupreDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1950
  4. Prendergast v. DwyerIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Parry v. Crosby, Justice of the PeaceUtah Supreme Court · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API