Court allows public nuisance suits against 3 Alabama casinos

Breaking Stories

Courts in two rural counties were wrong when they dismissed lawsuits filed by the state seeking to have three casinos declared public nuisances, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The decision meant the state can resume cases challenging operations at VictoryLand in Macon County as well as White Hall Entertainment and Southern Star Entertainment in Lowndes County.

Neither the state attorney general’s office nor an attorney on the side of a company involved with the casinos immediately replied to messages seeking comment.

The state, which has repeatedly attempted to shut down gambling halls with electronic games resembling slot machines, filed separate lawsuits in 2017 asking courts to declare that the casinos, located east and west of Montgomery, were public nuisances because they promoted illegal gambling.

The defendants asked courts to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that state courts did not have the power to hear the cases and claiming the attempted shutdowns were wrong since the state did not include Wind Creek casinos operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in the case.

A county judge sided with the casino operators and dismissed the Macon County lawsuit last year, and the justices considered both cases for purposes of appeal since they involved issues that were virtually identical.

In a 74-page opinion written by Associate Justice Kelli Wise, the court ruled the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, based in Atmore, was not an “indispensable party” to the dispute and did not have to be included in the complaints. A federal court has already barred the the state from trying to make public nuisance claims against the tribe's operations, Justice Brady Mendheim wrote in a separate opinion.

in Atmore, was not an “indispensable party” to the dispute and did not have to be included in the complaints. A federal court has already barred the the state from trying to make public nuisance claims against the tribe's operations, Justice Brady Mendheim wrote in a separate opinion.

While the county judges both determined they lacked the legal power to consider the cases, helping lead to the dismissals, the state argued the courts can consider the suits. The justices agreed and sent the cases back to circuit court.

Related listings

  • Trump announces new list of potential Supreme Court picks

    Trump announces new list of potential Supreme Court picks

    Breaking Stories 09/14/2020

    U.S. President Donald Trump announced at the White House on Wednesday a new list of 20 more candidates he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court, which is widely seen as his latest effort to bolster support among conservative voters in the No...

  • Supreme Court lifts ban on state aid to religious schooling

    Supreme Court lifts ban on state aid to religious schooling

    Breaking Stories 07/08/2020

    States can’t cut religious schools out of programs that send public money to private education, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.By a 5-4 vote with the conservatives in the majority, the justices upheld a  Montana scholarship program ...

  • Ohio to U.S. Supreme Court: Keep signature rules in place

    Ohio to U.S. Supreme Court: Keep signature rules in place

    Breaking Stories 07/02/2020

    The state of Ohio continued Monday to defend its right to impose normal signature requirements on ballot issue campaigns amid the global pandemic.Uncertainty over the question prompted a voting-rights campaign to suspend its ballot effort last week, ...

Victorville CA DUI Lawyers - Drunk Driving Defense Attorney

The outcome of a Victorville CA DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.

If you fail a sobriety test or have a blood alcohol level above 0.8%, you are considered to be driving under the influence in which you will be arrested. During this time you will be read your Miranda rights and it is crucial to exercise your right to remain silent. As they say, “anything you say can and will be held against you in court.” The courtroom takes no mercy on drunk drivers and any statement you make during your arrest will only damage your case.