A. Summary:
On May 5, 2006, Troy Blackford gambled at PRAIRIE MEADOWS RACETRACK AND CASINO and won $9,376. After knowing that Blackford had been banned from entering its premises, Prairie Meadows refused to pay him.
In 2000, Blackford wrote a letter to Meadows request to lift the ban. By the time Blackford won, Meadows was unable to find the letter but discovered it at a later date. Despite Blackford claims that Prairie Meadows had sent him a letter saying that the ban was lifted, Prairie Meadows refused to have done it. Finally, Blackford winnings were confiscated, and he had to pay fine for the trespassing.
Blackford sued Prairie Meadows and requires Prairie Meadows to recover the damages.
B. Court opinion:
The trial court concluded that
…show more content…
C. Student opinion:
The issue in this case is whether Prairie Meadows has a right under the Iowa Code to withhold gambling winnings from involuntary trespassers.
In my opinion, the court decision is precisely, and Prairie Meadows has the authority to confiscate winnings from Blackford. I come to that conclusion by analyze these following judgments:
Firstly, there is a contract here between Prairie Meadows and their patrons. According to Iowa Code: “Gambling interactions follow traditional contract theory with the requirements offer, acceptance, and consideration”. Because it is a contract so there are always offeror and offeree.
In this case, clearly, Prairie Meadows is the offeror. It makes an offer to its patrons that, it accepted by wagering an amount and patron wins, it will pay off the wager. In making an offer, Iowa Code mentions that: “The offeror is the master of his offer”, and as master, the offeror may decide to whom to propose the
Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So.3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) Appellant/Petitioner: Rafael Holland Appellee/Respondent: Cheney Bros., Inc. Facts: The claimant, Rafael Holland challenged the legal sufficiency of the Judge of Compensation (JCC) denying the request of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.
Facts: Rudy Stanko was driving on the Montana State Highway 200 when he was pulled over by Officer Kenneth Breidenbach, a member of the Montana Highway Patrol. Stanko had been driving his vehicle at a steady 85 miles per hour at a location that was “narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave.” This location also included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway head. The actual roadway held no other drivers at this time during the day. Stanko had been driving his new 1996 Chevrolet Camaro, with brakes, tires, and a steering wheel that were all in perfect operating conditions.
The state sued him for violating the Minnesota statute 609.805, subdivisions 2(2) and 4(4). The state claimed that he was violationg scalping laws by selling tickets for more than their face value. They also claimed that he violated by selling the tickets despite the tickets saying “not for sale after August 20th 2003.” The district court dismissed the suit, deciding that he did not violate either issue.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
According to Dent v. City of Dallas, the court ruled that police officers performing discretionary duties in good faith and acting within the course and scope of their employment are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The question that is presented in this situation is whether or not the police officer was acting within his course and scope of his employment. As a nation we have endowed our police officers with the right and authority to enforce the laws on whom they choose. Whether or not we reach the realization to this reality however is another story. The police officer has to use his ability on whom to arrest and not arrest responsibly because his actions do affect society.
The Supreme Court agreed, on the fact that the state's reasoning
The Federal District Court made a ruling in favor of Southworth and team on November 29, 1996. The court ruled that the fee system was against the student’s rights of free speech and were forced to pay for speeches that they were not in agreement
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.
Dean Smith, author of “The Black Sox Scandal”, highlights the biggest scandal in the baseball world. Smith introduces his article with Jim Crusinberry, a sports journalist, who arrived at the Sinton Hotel, Cincinnati for the World Series on September 30, 1919. Smith writes how Crusinberry noticed Abe Attell, former world featherweight boxing champion, screaming his throat out with a handful of money and offering to bet on Cincinnati Reds to beat the Chicago White Sox in the opening match. This behavior of Attell was twitching for Crusinberry, as to why he was betting against the greatest and finest team, Chicago White Sox, in the free-wheeling days of Americans gamblers.
They settled the issue with a financial settlement there was never a proper case. The agreement of the financial settlement was 350,000
What if you could gamble in Hawaii? Would it be good or bad? They shouldn’t keep gambling illegal because it would make things worst for the people struggling and close to it. As long as the economy remains bad there will be even more gambling bills, it will take away time from family atmosphere and create more problems than good, and people have high a chance of getting addicted and won’t know when to quit or stop. The first reason why is as long as the economy remains bad there will be even more gambling bills.
However, they fail to address the killing of Indians by whites during this same time. The film also shows how big a part of life the gambling industry was in the west. There were several gambling halls in Tombstone, where men would spend their money, drink, and meet women. The film also correctly explores the gray line between law enforcement and criminal activities in the west. Sheriff Behan was in league with the Cowboys, who he had even deputized.
Throughout the Roaring 20s many criminal activities had taken place in the United States, such as: World Series Fixing, bootlegging and speakeasies, police complicity in crime, and the Teapot Scandal. The roaring 20s was an era where both employment rate and the amount of leisure time increased. As a family’s income grew, more time was spent for leisure activities such as sports, music, and literature. However, the sport baseball had become such a disappointment for both the baseball players and the public. In the beginning of the 1920s World Fixing took place.
At the end of this case, the court had this to