State of Texas v. $1,760.00 in United States Currency, 37 \8\ Liner MacHines

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that eight-liners in question did “not fall within the exclusion in section 47.01(4)(B) because the distributed tickets were not redeemable exclusively for noncash merchandise prizes, toys, or novelties”
• explaining that “[u]ndefined terms in a statute are typically given their ordinary meaning” and that, “when an undefined term has multiple common meanings, the definition most consistent within the context of the statute’s scheme applies”
• explaining that even if an undefined term has multiple common meanings, that does not necessarily make the statute ambiguous and that instead an appellate court will apply the definition most consistent with the context of the statutory scheme
• noting that “novelty” has multiple dictionary definitions
• noting that “novelty” has multiple dictionary definitions
• in civil forfeiture case, interpreting Penal Code definitions and holding that particular gaming device did not fall under Penal Code exclusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).