| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
F069302
|
Stand Up for California! v. State of California (North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians)
Governor's concurrence for off-reservation casino in Madera County is invalid without state-approved compact for gaming on that parcel. |
Gaming |
|
Dec. 13, 2016 | |
|
13-16517
|
State of Arizona v. Tohono O’Odham Nation
Tohono O'odham Nation defeats Arizona and surrounding communities' opposition to its plan to open up Class III gaming near Glendale, Arizona. |
Gaming |
|
Mar. 30, 2016 | |
|
14-56104
|
Pauma v. State of California
Summary judgment in favor of Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians proper where California misrepresents material fact when negotiating amendment to gaming compact. |
Gaming |
|
Dec. 21, 2015 | |
|
14-56104
|
Pauma v. State of California
Summary judgment in favor of Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians proper where California misrepresents material fact when negotiating amendment to gaming compact. |
Gaming |
|
Oct. 27, 2015 | |
|
14-35753
|
State of Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe
Coeur d'Alene Tribe's sovereign immunity is abrogated where Hold'em poker game is Class III gaming prohibited by Tribal-State compact. |
Gaming |
|
Jul. 22, 2015 | |
|
G050923
|
Cosentino v. Fuller
Sovereign immunity does not bar retaliation claims against members of Indian gaming commission brought by former Indian casino employee who worked as government informant. |
Gaming |
|
Jun. 25, 2015 | |
|
G050923
|
Cosentino v. Fuller
Sovereign immunity does not bar retaliation claims against members of Indian gaming commission brought by former Indian casino employee who worked as government informant. |
Gaming |
|
Jun. 23, 2015 | |
|
10-17803
|
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California
California's claims that Indian tribe lacks standing and is not a recognized tribe should have been brought under the APA and not as a collateral attack. |
Gaming |
|
Jun. 4, 2015 | |
|
G050923
|
Cosentino v. Fuller
Sovereign immunity does not bar retaliation claims against members of Indian gaming commission brought by former Indian casino employee who worked as government informant. |
Gaming |
|
May 28, 2015 | |
|
13-35464
|
Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington
Most-favored tribe clause does not permit tribe to cherry-pick terms that the State did not agree to and which did not match other tribe’s compact. |
Gaming |
|
Apr. 19, 2015 | |
|
D064271
|
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission
Gambling Control Commission may withhold trust funds from tribe indefinitely, until Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that internal tribal dispute has been resolved. |
Gaming |
|
Nov. 23, 2014 | |
|
A140203
|
Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown
Casino opponents fail to overturn gaming compact Governor entered into with Graton Tribe, which authorized gaming operations in City of Rohnert. |
Gaming |
|
Oct. 29, 2014 | |
|
A140203
|
Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown
Casino opponents fail to overturn gaming compact Governor entered into with Graton Tribe, which authorized gaming operations in City of Rohnert. |
Gaming |
|
Oct. 5, 2014 | |
|
11-17939
|
Zoggolis v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC
Complaint related to gambling debt based on markers issued by Wynn Las Vegas is not required to be brought before Nevada Gaming Control Board. |
Gaming |
|
Sep. 23, 2014 | |
|
D060570
|
Cates v. Chiang
Taxpayer who sued state gambling commission for failure to perform oversight duties may recover attorney fees as lawsuit caused commission to conduct appropriate audits. |
Gaming |
|
Feb. 8, 2013 | |
|
B221010
|
Glen Hill Farm LLC v. California Horse Racing Board
Trial court has discretion to vacate its initial judgment if it determines that judgment was incorrect or erroneous. |
Gaming |
|
Nov. 8, 2010 | |
|
B202411
|
Stone Street Capital v. California State Lottery Commission
UCC does not invalidate California State Lottery Act's restrictions on assignment of lottery winnings. |
Gaming |
|
Jul. 24, 2008 | |
|
05-17066
|
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming Ltd.
Secretary's required approval under 25 U.S.C. Section 81 applies only to contracts with Indian tribes affecting lands already held in trust by United States. |
Gaming |
|
Jun. 27, 2008 | |
|
02-16508
|
Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton
California's exception of gaming operations on tribal land from its prohibition of class III gaming passes constitutional muster. |
Gaming |
|
Feb. 17, 2004 | |
|
B147589
|
Stokes v. California Horse Racing Board
Horse Racing Board may hold licensed trainer responsible for unknowingly racing unqualified horse. |
Gaming |
|
Aug. 6, 2002 | |
|
C031367
|
Carmichael v. County of Sacramento
County fee levied against nonprofit bingo parlor's prize payouts does not violate state constitution. |
Gaming |
|
Dec. 10, 2001 | |
|
99-15675
|
U.S. v. 103 Electronic Gambling Devices
Technologic aids to bingo are not gambling devices under Johnson Act. |
Gaming |
|
Nov. 2, 2000 | |
|
B134202
|
People v. Pacific Gaming Technologies
Calling card vending machine meets statutory definition of illegal slot machine and fails to qualify for exemption. |
Gaming |
|
Aug. 31, 2000 |
For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com