Skip to comments.
Judge: Gambling debts unenforceable in California
AP vis San Francisco Examiner ^
| 3/6/7
Posted on 03/06/2007 10:34:29 AM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 last
To: Vicomte13; goldstategop; y'all
goldstategop:
What he means is private gambling debts can't be collected in California. I wonder what that means for gambling establishments in the state's Indian reservations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicomte13:
Those debts would be enforced in tribal court, not state court, and full faith and credit would require the state to enforce the decisions.
If the state won't, the tribe can appeal to federal court and make them. An Indian Reservation is an independent sovereignty. It is a peer of the state, not a subject of the state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indian tribal governments, just like State & local governments, are subject to the US Constitution. -- And under the US Constitution, gambling is legal, -- but subject to regulation from Indian tribal, State & local governments. --
-- However, as Kopp points out, gambling debts are not enforceable in most states and under most sets of facts.
Since 1710, when Queen Anne of England signed the Statute of Anne, gambling debts have been unenforceable under the common law of the English-speaking world.
Anyone who lends anyone else money, knowing the money will be used for gambling, is making a contract that is normally unenforceable.
Nevada is the best example. If a Las Vegas casino accepts an oral bet and the player loses and refuses to pay, the casino has no legal right to sue.
The Nevada Legislature had to pass a special law to allow suits on written markers.
41
posted on
03/06/2007 12:22:22 PM PST
by
tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
To: ContemptofCourt
I imagine the casinos will just collect using older, time-tested methods....I won't be surprised if this couple gets a little visit from Guido and Vinny...
42
posted on
03/06/2007 12:25:29 PM PST
by
ABG(anybody but Gore)
("We're Living In A Twilight World..."- Swingout Sister)
To: edcoil
43
posted on
03/06/2007 12:25:39 PM PST
by
RichInOC
("Raging Moose! Falling Rock! Help the Judge find his checkbook!")
To: goldstategop
It says so in the article - The Cache Creek Casino is an Indian tribe based operation - and apparently they can't collect either.
44
posted on
03/06/2007 12:48:35 PM PST
by
fremont_steve
(Milpitas - a great place to be FROM!)
To: Dog Gone
So, does this also mean that if you win a $2 million jackpot at a casino in California, the casino doesn't have to pay the debt? Certainly. Provided the casino owners weren't interested in making anymore money at their casino.
45
posted on
03/06/2007 12:50:30 PM PST
by
Wolfie
To: Dog Gone
Certainly not if they sue in Nevada.
To: SmithL
Judge: Gambling debts unenforceable in California
Oh, Really?
47
posted on
03/07/2007 7:24:02 AM PST
by
Dick Vomer
(liberals suck......... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson