W. B. GIBSON, AS SHERIFF OF LAKE COUNTY,
v.
W. H. ROBINSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order granting a temporary injunction against a sheriff. The injunction prevented the sheriff from interfering with the operation of coin-operated vending and amusement machines with premium features, provided all required licenses were paid.
No, the operation of such a machine, when properly licensed, does not constitute a lottery. Therefore, the sheriff cannot interfere with its operation.
“The appeal is from an order granting temporary injunction to the complainant against the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, restraining the said Sheriff from interfering with the operation of a slot machine such as is described as coin-operated vending and amusement machines with premium features in Chapter 17,257, Acts of 1935, when all licenses required under the provisions of that legislative Act had been duly paid and a permit and license [*89] granted to the operator and the location operator to operate such vending machine.”
This quote describes the core of the case: the injunction granted against the sheriff regarding the operation of a licensed slot machine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheriff of Lake County was restrained by a temporary injunction from interfering with the operation of a specific type of coin-operated machine. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lottery Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from an order granting temporary injunction to the complainant against the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, restraining the said Sheriff from interfering with the operation of a slot machine such as is described as coin-operated vending and amusement machines with premium features in Chapter 17,257, Acts of 1935, when all licenses required under the provisions of that legislative Act had been duly paid and a permit and license *89granted to the operator and the location operator to operate such vending machine.
It is contended by the appellant that the operation of the slot machine involved constituted conducting a lottery and that, therefore, the Act above referred to did not permit its legal operation.
The coin-operated device comes directly within the description of the machine defined in Paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Chapter 17,257, supra, and the operation of such machines has been held by this Court not to constitute a lottery in the case of Lee, Comptroller, v. City of Miami, 121 Fla. 93, 163 Sou. 486; and also in Hardison v. Coleman, 121 Fla. 892, 164 Sou. 520, and in Lee v. Beck, 121 Fla. 114, 163 Sou. 495.
Therefore, the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. Lopez, 531 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1988)…e exemptions shall inure to the surviving spouse or heirs of the owner. (Emphasis added.) .E.g., Brown v. Hutch, 156 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 162 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1964); Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 45, 172 So. 476 (1937); Whidden v. Abbott, 124 Fla. 293, 168 So. 253 (1936); In re Wilder’s Estate, 240 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); In re Noble's Estate, 73 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1954); Brady v. Brady, 55 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1950). . The principles governing constructi…
-
Brown v. Hutch, 156 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…he homestead features of property are gauged and contain some facts which may be compared interestingly to those here concerned. See Whidden v. Abbott, 1936, 124 Fla. 293, 168 So. 253; Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 1937, 127 Fla. 45, 172 So. 476; Brady v. Brady, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 907. The burden was upon appellant to establish existence of a homestead through facts to sustain her allegations in this regard, since she was the one asserting it. Matthews v. Jeacle, 1911, 61 Fla. 686, 55 So.…
-
Waymon Solomon v. Davis, 100 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1958)…lly rests upon one as ‘the head of a family’ for the welfare of the others who, in law, should, or in fact, do, recognize and observe a family relation to the one as ‘the head of a family’.” Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 45, 172 So. 476, 479; Whidden v. Abbott, 124 Fla. 293, 168 So. 253; Johns v. Bowden, 68 Fla. 32, 66 So. 155. The last cited decision makes it equally clear, as recognized in the opinion of the court in this case, that for purposes of acquiring homestead privileges…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lee v. The City of Miami, 121 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1935)
- Hardison v. Coleman, 121 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1935)
- Lee v. Beck, 121 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1935)