Lashbrook v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• `[c]hance rather than skill must therefore be the dominant factor controlling the award in a lottery'
• a four-level pyramid, similar to the one before this court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• L.E. Services, Inc. v. State Lottery Commission
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1995-01-31· cited 31×
• Opinion of the Justices
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 2001-04-24· cited 24×
• Ex Parte Ted's Game Enterprises
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 2004-05-28· cited 18×
• George v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2011-04-21· cited 12×
• Pruitt v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1990-07-31· cited 9×
• State v. Maillard
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-06-12· cited 4×
• State v. Bey
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1992-12-18· cited 4×
• George v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  Seventh Circuit· 2010-07-16· cited 1×
• Commonwealth v. Stewart-Johnson
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2011-01-12· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Marsillett v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1986-07-22· cited 111×
• Jewell v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1989-06-23· cited 24×
• State v. Dahlk
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1983-01-10· cited 21×
• Roberts v. Communications Investment Club of Woonsocket
  Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 1981-07-01· cited 17×
• Beaty v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1882-05-15· cited 13×
• Solon v. Meuer
  Civil Court of the City of New York· 1987-11-13· cited 9×