Ark. Code Ann. » Title 26 Chapter 57
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-403 (2026)

Automatic money payoff mechanisms not legalized

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

History. Acts 1939, No. 201, § 3; 1949, No. 76, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-2612; Acts 1995, No. 740, § 2; 2005, No. 1994, § 209.

Case Notes

Amusement Device.

Three countertop machines were not gaming devices per se where no tokens, money, or prizes were offered in connection with the machines, and the countertop machines were specifically listed as amusement devices under § 26-57-402; the machines were more akin to video arcade machines intended for amusement because a player inserted money and could play gambling-like games, but never received anything in return except amusement. State v. 26 Gaming Machs., 356 Ark. 47, 145 S.W.3d 368 (2004).

Gambling Device.

Just as devices described as slot machines in another case were determined to be illegal gaming devices, defendant's devices were gambling devices proscribed by § 5-66-104; because they were slot machines, they were expressly excluded by subsection (a) of this section from the definition of amusement device in § 26-57-402. Paris v. State, 87 Ark. App. 344, 192 S.W.3d 277 (2004).

Cited: City of Piggott v. Eblen, 236 Ark. 390, 366 S.W.2d 192 (1963).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2004 · leading case: State v. 26 Gaming MacHines, 145 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. 26 Gaming MacHines, 145 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 6× “" Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-403 (a) (Repl.1997).”
Sharp v. State, 88 S.W.3d 848 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 2× “We further note that Ark. Code Ann. §26-57-403 (a) (Repl. 1997) provides that the cited tax statutes, Ark.”
Smith v. State, 97 S.W.3d 380 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 4× “Appellant Melton Smith was convicted of “Exchanging Money for a Non-Cash Prize,” an unclassified misdemeanor that violated Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-403 . Appellant’s counsel, Dennis Molock, has requested that the clerk accept the record tendered as a result of his notice of appeal.”
Paris v. State, 192 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-403 (a) (Repl. 1997).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.