Albert Lea Amusement Corp. v. Hanson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentMatson, Justice
I dissent. Unless we expressly overrule State v. Schubert Theatre Players Co. 203 Minn. 366, 281 N. W. 369, plaintiff’s bank-night scheme must be held to be a lottery. There is no difference in substance between the facts here and those of the Schubert case.
In the Schubert case, the purchaser of a theater admission ticket received from the ticket seller a separate coupon bearing a serial or identification number. These coupons were also given free to non-purchasers of tickets who called at the theater and requested them. All coupon holders, whether ticket purchasers or not, participated in…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
- State v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
- Glover v. MalloskaMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- State v. DanzWashington Supreme Court · 1926
- Commonwealth v. WallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.