Berman v. Riverside Casino Corporation
| Decision Date | 16 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | 19747.,No. 19283,19283 |
| Citation | 354 F.2d 43 |
| Parties | Jack K. BERMAN, Appellant, v. RIVERSIDE CASINO CORPORATION, H. J. Munley, Emmet Munley, William Miller, First Doe and Second Doe, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Frank R. Petersen, Reno, Nev., James Martin MacInnis, Jack K. Berman and Cyril Viadro, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John S. Belford, Belford & Anglim, Reno, Nev., for appellee.
Before POPE, DUNIWAY and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion of Judge Thompson in the district court, Berman v. Riverside Casino Corporation et al., 247 F.Supp. 243. We agree with that opinion, and the judgment of the court below, which granted a summary judgment dismissing the action as against the defendant H. J. Munley. The district court certified there was no just reason for delay and the plaintiff took this appeal. We affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.
In appellant's brief, and in his argument in this court, his claim for recovery is predicated upon his assumption that Munley was a "licensee" of the gaming license issued for the Riverside Casino. Proceeding from this assumption appellant seems to argue that the State's public policy, as expressed in the statutes and regulations, requires that Munley be held liable to the plaintiff.1 If Munley was a licensee it might possibly be urged that the duties imposed upon a licensee by Regulation 5.010 give rise to a civil liability for the consequences of improper operation of the gambling casino.2
Judge Thompson, however, was correct in noting that Munley was not a licensee. In addition to his able discussion of this point, we note the plain distinction made by § 463.200 Nevada Revised Codes between the licensee on the one hand and "persons directly or indirectly interested" on the other. The section reads: Nowhere in the statutes or regulations can we find any provision that would negative this inference that persons in the position of Munley are not licensees.
The judgment is affirmed.
1 From appellant's brief: "In other words,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kamakazi Music Corp. v. Robbins Music Corp., 80 Civ. 2877 (RWS).
... ... Publications, Inc., Plaintiffs, ... ROBBINS MUSIC CORPORATION and Vicks Lithograph, Inc., Defendants ... No. 80 Civ. 2877 (RWS) ... ...
-
U.S. v. Polizzi
...115, 119-120, 310 P.2d 852, 854 (1957). See also Berman v. Riverside Casino Corporation, 247 F.Supp. 243, 250 (D.Nev.1964), aff'd, 354 F.2d 43 (9 Cir. 1965).This statement of policy was not qualified but rather reaffirmed by N.R.S. 463.130(1), supra.10 See Huddleston v. United States, 415 U......
- Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/EF Hutton, Civ. A. No. 89-2858-T.
-
U.S. v. Goldfarb
...law. It is that law which defines unlawful activity. In Berman v. Riverside Casino Corp., 247 F.Supp. 243, 248 (D.Nev.1964), aff'd 354 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1965), the court held that regulations promulgated by the Nevada Gaming Commission "have the force and effect of law." Cf. United States v......