State Ex Rel. Schillberg v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHale, J.
They used to play “Bonus Bingo” in the Safeway Stores in Snohomish County. Then, the prosecuting attorney put a stop to it. He says that Bonus Bingo is a lottery, that this makes it a nuisance, and that the scheme should be enjoined. Safeway says that Bonus Bingo is neither a lottery nor a nuisance but is simply an advertising device of a type widely employed in merchandising. We incline toward the prosecuting attorney’s point of view.
The case was initiated on an agreed statement of facts by an action for a declaratory judgment on the legality of Bonus Bingo, and for an injunction brought by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Evans v. Brotherhood of FriendsWashington Supreme Court · 1952
- State v. DanzWashington Supreme Court · 1926
- Lucky Calendar Co. v. CohenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
- Society Theatre v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- City of Seattle v. Chin LetWashington Supreme Court · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. Reader's Digest Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Harris v. Missouri Gaming CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
- Mobil Oil Corporation v. DanforthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
- Su Thao v. Control Data Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1990
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.