SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD)
LTFD 0.1700.0%Sep 29 11:29 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ed Pettee who wrote (5523)12/14/1997 11:34:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen  Read Replies (1) of 10368
 
Ed - I am curious about the sequence of events and possible outcomes the U.S. judge can follow. The most recent State article says:

That seems likely to change sometime next year. Last week, anti-poker lawyers asked a federal judge to shut down the industry as an illegal lottery. U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson could send that question directly to the state Supreme Court for a decision on whether video poker is a lottery.

This paragraph indicates a FEDERAL case has already been presented and that the U.S. judge "could" send the question to the SC Supreme Court. This raises several questions:

1. How long before the U.S. judge issues a ruling?
2. What options does the U.S. judge have? It sounds like sending the issue to the SC Supreme Court is only one of several possible alternatives he could choose.
3. How is it that a federal judge has jurisdiction over a state constitutional issue?
4. If the issue is refered to the SC Supreme Court, how long before arguments will be heard and how long after that before a decision would be announced?

If the federal jugde decides to send the issue to the SC Supreme Court, it would seem to me they would, again, bounce the issue back to a lower court as they have already done. I guess I am confused as to why this thing is a federal issue. I suppose it has something to do with class-action law (wish I were an attorney). Sounds to me like the SC AG is trying to find a way around having to prevail in the SC court system where he has lost every time. JMO.

TKA
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News