Boynton v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis
57 F.2d 665 · 1932
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2007
4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. · Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker · Alabama v. United States · National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thompson · Chicago Great Western Railway Co. v. Kendall
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems clear to us that these tokens or checks which are obtained by chance represent some value and constitute property. The best reason for this view is that the public is thereby enticed into patronizing the machines. It is the professed object of installing them. The tokens or checks may be likened to theater tickets in representing a means of amusement. The tickets have value. State v. Blair, 130 Kan. 863 , 288 P. 729 ; State v. Haining, 131 Kan. 854 , 293 P. 952 . “The principle generally sustained by the courts is that, ‘where one who plays a slot machine stands to win or lose money, trade, or checks, by hazard or chance, the machine is a gambling device.’ 27 C.J. p. 989. Otherwise stated, it is that ‘any slot machine * * * will be deemed to be an unlawful gambling device, where the one who plays the machine stands to win or lose money, trade checks, or prizes, by a chance, or more broadly, where there is an element of chance in its operation.’ 12 R.C.L. p. 730. “These texts are supported by a wealth of decisions. Statutes like those of Kansas may be regarded as condemning an extreme instance of gambling, but the wisdom of the enactments is a legislative question. They fall within the police power of a state. By uniform authority appellee’s machines must be classified as gambling devices. The following cases are squarely in point: [Citations omitted.] * * * * * * “Our conclusion is that appellee’s slot machines are gambling devices, and their operation is violative ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Giomi v. Chase
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.