Legal Opinion

United States v. Various Gambling Devices

District Court, N.D. Mississippi

Decided March 30, 1972No. EC 7147, EC 7153, EC 7155, EC 7157PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ORMA R. SMITH, District Judge.

The claimant, A. B. Fort, has filed a motion to dismiss the In Rem Complaints For Forfeiture filed in the above captioned and numbered actions which have been heretofore consolidated by the court for trial.

Plaintiff seeks an order for forfeiture and condemnation of defendant pinball machines. 1

Claimant seeks to recover the machines and asserts that the machines are not subject to forfeiture or condemnation. The motion to dismiss is bottomed on the contention that the statutes upon which plaintiff relies are unconstitutional and unenforceable…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Video Operators v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. United States v. Various Gambling DevicesDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1973
  3. United States v. 18 Gambling DevicesDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API