Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Madere

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 15, 1977No. Nos. 7677, 7678Published

1DissentGulotta, Judge

I dissent.

I agree with the State’s contention that a slot machine is a “gambling device” as defined in Section B. of the applicable statute; and, that the State Police are mandated to seize and destroy these machines although not in “use” or “used for gambling” at the time of seizure.

LSA-R.S. 15:31(A) empowers and mandates the State Police to “immediately destroy all gambling devices or machines used for gambling that come to their attention.” LSA-R.S. 15:31(B) defines the term “gambling device" as either a “slot machine” or a machine “with a cash automatic payout device” or “a pinball or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Samuels v. McCurdySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Vaughan v. DowlingSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1962
  5. Schimpf v. ThomasSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1943

2 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