(1) A person commits the offense of possession of a gambling device if he or she manufactures, sells, transports, places, possesses, or conducts or negotiates any transaction affecting or designed to affect ownership, custody, or use of any gambling device, knowing that it shall be used in the advancement of unlawful gambling activity.
(2) The owner or operator of a retail establishment who is not a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of mechanical amusement devices as defined under the Mechanical Amusement Device Tax Act, shall have an affirmative defense to possession of a gambling device described in subsection (1) of this section if the device bears an unexpired mechanical amusement device decal as required by such act. However, such affirmative defense may be overcome if the owner or operator had actual knowledge that operation of the device constituted unlawful gambling activity at any time such device was operated on the premises of the retail establishment.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any mechanical game or device classified by the federal government as an illegal gambling device and requiring a federal Gambling Device Tax Stamp as required by the Internal Revenue Service in its administration of 26 U.S.C. 4461 and 4462, amended July 1, 1965, by Public Law 89-44, is hereby declared to be illegal.
(4) Possession of a gambling device is a Class II misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Spire v. Strawberries, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 428 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 33× “, and 18 other Douglas County taverns or individuals doing business as taverns appeal a district court judgment (1) permanently enjoining them from possessing or allowing the playing of video gambling devices on their premises and (2) finding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107 (2)…”
State v. Two IGT Video Poker Games, 465 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 11× “Schmit Industries has assigned 19 errors, which combine to claim that (1) the statutes upon which the forfeitures are based violate various provisions of the federal and state Constitutions, and (2) the district court erred in concluding that the machines were gambling devices…”
State v. Dodge City, 470 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 6× “The State assigns as error the trial court’s determination that the 1987 amendment to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107 (Reissue 1989) made only possession of certain mechanical gambling devices illegal, and its determination that in order for forfeiture to be legal, possession of the…”
State v. One 1986 Toyota 4-Runner Auto., 510 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The State has specifically prohibited the possession of gambling devices when the owner knows the gambling device shall be used to advance unlawful gambling activity, as defined under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107 (Reissue 1989).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107(1): 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Spire v. Strawberries, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 428 (Neb. 1991).
“, and 18 other Douglas County taverns or individuals doing business as taverns appeal a district court judgment (1) permanently enjoining them from possessing or allowing the playing of video gambling devices on their premises and (2) finding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107 (2)…”
State v. Two IGT Video Poker Games, 465 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 1991).
“Schmit Industries has assigned 19 errors, which combine to claim that (1) the statutes upon which the forfeitures are based violate various provisions of the federal and state Constitutions, and (2) the district court erred in concluding that the machines were gambling devices…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107(2): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Spire v. Strawberries, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 428 (Neb. 1991).
“, and 18 other Douglas County taverns or individuals doing business as taverns appeal a district court judgment (1) permanently enjoining them from possessing or allowing the playing of video gambling devices on their premises and (2) finding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1107 (2)…”
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.