Legal Opinion

Earhart v. Young

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice DeHaven

Complainant filed his original bill herein alleging, in substance, that he is the owner and distributor of amusement games, commonly referred to as pinball games, and has expended a large sum of money in the purchase of these machines; that the machines in question do not emit chips or tokens nor does complainant or operator offer a prize for a given score; that the game is for amusement only and so states on the face of the machine; that all customers who come into the place where the machine is displayed are extended the right to operate the same on the payment of a five-cent charge, not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kelly v. ConnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Erwin Billard Parlor v. BucknerTennessee Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Lindsey v. DraneTennessee Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Frankland Carriage Co. v. City of JacksonTennessee Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Witschner v. City of AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1941
  2. Troy Amusement Co. v. AttenweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Brackner v. EstesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
  4. Tennessee Downs, Inc. v. GibbonsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
  5. Brown v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1953

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