SUTTER'S PLACE, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
George KENNEDY, as District Attorney, etc., Defendant and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
April 22, 1999.
April 22, 1999.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Richard D. Martland, Neilsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, Jerry M. Hill, Arter & Hadden, Mill Valley, Attorneys for Appellant Sutter's Place, Inc.
Peter Wallin, Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, Santa Monica, Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Gardena, on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Joseph R. Grodin, Michael J. Kass, Friedman, Ross & Hersh, San Francisco, Attorney for Amicus Curiae California Card Club Association, on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Allan J. Titus, Robb & Ross, Mill Valley, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Artichoke Joes', on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Sidley & Austin, George Deukmejian, James M. Harris and Robert A. Holland, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Cities of Commerce, Inglewood, San Bruno and San Pablo as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Douglas A. Axel, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Californians for Indian Self Reliance, et al., on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
George W. Kennedy, District Attorney, Martha J. Donohoe, Julius L. Finkelstein, Deputy District Attorneys, Attorneys for Respondent.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, Assistant Attorney General, and Ronald L. Diedrich, Deputy Attorney General, for Department of Justice, Division of Gambling as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.
OPINION
MIHARA, J.
The issue before us in this case is whether certain card games become illegal "percentage" games when the cardroom operator permits multiple bets by a single individual on a single hand and utilizes fee collection practices under which a fixed fee is collected for each bet within one monetary range and a higher fixed fee is collected for each bet within a higher monetary range. We conclude that such fee collection practices do not violate...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
