Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Duckworth
| Docket Number: | 2006-IA-01877-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-IA-01877-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2008 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Gaming Commission - Jurisdiction - Section 75-76-157(2) - Section 75-76-5 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2006 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: The trial court ruled that the Mississippi Gaming Commission did not have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute arising from a casino's promotional drawing. Case Number: 06,0106-CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | AMERISTAR CASINO VICKSBURG, INC. |
TIMOTHY D. MOORE,
WHITMAN B. JOHNSON,
CURRIE GRIFFIN JOHNSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | JIMMY L. DUCKWORTH | MARK W. PREWITT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Gaming Commission - Jurisdiction - Section 75-76-157(2) - Section 75-76-5 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. held a promotional drawing titled “$190,000 Dream Car Giveaway” which was open only to Ameristar Star Awards cardholders who obtained entries based on their play at the casino. Players were required to be present in the casino to win. The entries were placed in a drum, from which ten finalists were drawn at random. The winner was allowed to spin a prize wheel to determine whether he or she would win a car or money. Subsequently, Ameristar declared Jimmy L. Duckworth as the winner and gave him $5,461 in cash and a check for $35,000. However, Ameristar stopped payment on the check, contending that Duckworth received the contest entry form in an unauthorized manner in violation of the rules of the promotion. Duckworth reported this incident to the Mississippi Gaming Commission which issued a notice of violation to Ameristar for failing to immediately report the dispute. Duckworth also filed a complaint in circuit court seeking payment of the $35,000 check. Ameristar filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the MGC had exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising from the Giveaway. The circuit court refused to relinquish jurisdiction, and Ameristar appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 75-76-157(2) provides that a claim by a patron of a licensee for payment of a gaming debt not evidenced by a credit instrument may be resolved by the executive director in accordance with section 75-76-159 through 75-76-165. Although the statute employs the term “may be resolved” (suggesting concurrent jurisdiction) rather than “shall be resolved” (suggesting exclusive jurisdiction), the Court nevertheless has held that all gaming matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mississippi Gaming Commission. The provisions of the Gaming Control Act clearly limit the MGC’s jurisdiction to disputes between patrons and casinos arising from gambling debts. Ameristar’s giveaway did not involve gambling, and was not a “game” as defined by the Gaming Control Act. The giveaway was open to Ameristar cardholders who received tickets to be used in a drawing. Although the number of entries for the drawing was based upon the amount of play at the casino, the tickets themselves cost nothing. Also, a free ticket was given to Ameristar cardholders simply upon showing valid ID. The prize was awarded by random drawing which does not fall under the definition of a “game” or “gambling” found in sections 75-76-5(k) or 75-76-5(l). Thus, the MGC does not have jurisdiction to decide this dispute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
