Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Market Gems:Stocks w/Strong Earnings and High Tech. Rank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ryan Sudhoff who wrote (18809)	11/19/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: Starduster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120523

Thursday, November 19, 1998 S.C. Supreme Court upholds legality of video poker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By The Associated Press -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- South Carolina's Supreme Court, in a split decision, today upheld video poker as legal in the state. The decision, which has been pending since the case was argued in April, paves the way for the $2.3 billion industry, which Gov. David Beasley tried to ban, to continue. "We won," exclaimed industry lawyer Dwight Drake. The court split 3-2 over the issue with Chief Justice Ernest Finney writing the 30-page majority opinion, joined by Justice James Moore and Acting Justice Charles Whetstone. Justice Jean Toal dissented from part of the ruling and concurred with part. Justice E.C. Burnett dissented entirely, saying, that such games clearly are lotteries prohibited by the state constitution. As of June, were 29,617 video gambling machines registered in the state, according to a Revenue Department report issued this week. The machines take in an average of more than $80,000 apiece and pay out about 71 percent of that in winnings. The justices were asked to rule on the issue by a federal judge who is considering a lawsuit from gamblers who lost money to the machines and who contended the industry broke state law. The decision also will affect numerous other lawsuits challenging the industry in state courts. "Video gaming devices do not come within the plain and ordinary meaning of 'lottery' because they do not involve a drawing and 'tickets' or any other indicium of entitlement to a prize," Finney wrote. The chief justice said he was following the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the term lottery in the state constitution. The court cannot consider arguments that video gambling is harmful to the state, Finney said. It is not "the proper basis upon which the courts may declare unlawful any such activity." The video gambling industry turned on Beasley, a Republican, after he unsuccessfully tried to ban the games earlier this year and threw substantial financial support behind Democrat Jim Hodges, who beat Beasley on Nov. 3. The industry has not disclosed how much it spent on Hodges' behalf. Beasley contended throughout the campaign that electing Hodges would open the state to organized crime. "Today's ruling is quite significant in that it legitimizes the operation of the games," said Fred Collins, the largest video-gambling machine owner in the state and the leader of the attack against Beasley. "Now we can concentrate on regulations and a tax to fund education." Although the state has tried to regulate the games, limiting the number per location and payouts to $125 per day, those have been consistently challenged by the industry in the courts. Beasley and Hodges could not immediately be reached for comment.