City of Piedmont v. Evans

Decision Date20 May 1994
Citation642 So.2d 435
PartiesCITY OF PIEDMONT, Alabama v. Jimmy EVANS, in his official capacity of Attorney General for the State of Alabama; et al. 1930640.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Ronald L. Allen of Merrill, Merrill, Mathews & Allen, Anniston, for appellant.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., Angela C. Turner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carol Jean Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph H. Hubbard, Dist. Atty., Anniston, for appellees.

STEAGALL, Justice.

The City of Piedmont brought this declaratory action against Joseph D. Hubbard, in his official capacity as district attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Alabama, seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of Piedmont City Ordinance No. 413, which allows certain nonprofit organizations to operate "instant bingo" games as fundraisers. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order declaring that instant bingo was an illegal lottery and that Piedmont City Ordinance No. 413 was unconstitutional. The City appealed.

In its declaratory judgment order, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:

"This matter comes before the Court upon the Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by the Plaintiff, city of Piedmont, and the answer filed by the Defendant, Joseph D. Hubbard, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Calhoun County, Alabama. Defendant, Jimmy Evans, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, filed an acceptance and waiver in this cause. A trial was held on the 21st day of July 1993, at which time the parties submitted testimony and evidence, as well as a Stipulation of Facts for the Court's consideration in this case. The parties were further allowed to submit written briefs and arguments for the Court's consideration. Upon consideration of all matters submitted, this Court finds and concludes the following:

"Article IV, § 65, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, prohibits lotteries or gift enterprises in this State, providing as follows:

" 'The Legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purposes, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this state of lottery or gift enterprise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nature of a lottery; and all acts, or parts of acts heretofore passed by the legislature of this state, authorizing a lottery or lotteries, and all acts amendatory thereof, or supplemental thereto, are hereby avoided.'

"The elements of a lottery violative of § 65 of the Constitution of Alabama are a prize, awarded by chance, and for consideration. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Luverne, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Andalusia, 534 So.2d 295 (Ala.1988).

"The parties have stipulated, and the Court finds, that 'bingo' is a lottery. In 1989, the Alabama Legislature proposed Amendment No. 508 to the Constitution of Alabama, providing for the operation of 'bingo' games in Calhoun County, Alabama, for prizes or money by certain non-profit organizations for charitable, educational or other lawful purposes. Said proposed Amendment was submitted at an election held on September 14, 1989, and was proclaimed ratified June 22, 1990, thereby legalizing the lottery of 'bingo' in Calhoun County, Alabama.

"Amendment No. 508 to the Constitution of Alabama did not repeal Article IV, § 65, of the Constitution of Alabama. Amendment No. 508 simply amended the Constitution of Alabama by allowing the lottery of 'bingo' to be operated legally in Calhoun County for prizes or money by certain non-profit organizations for charitable, educational, or other lawful purposes. The only lottery legalized by the passage and ratification of Amendment No. 508 was and is the lottery of 'bingo.'

"Subsequent to the ratification of Amendment No. 508, the City of Piedmont, Alabama (which is located in Calhoun County), adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 413, amending Municipal Ordinance No. 373 by providing for the operation of 'instant bingo,' in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Epic Tech, LLC
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 25, 2020
    ...rejections by our courts of attempts to misuse local bingo amendments occurred a little over 20 years ago. In City of Piedmont v. Evans, 642 So. 2d 435 (Ala. 1994), this Court held that ‘instant bingo’ was a form of lottery prohibited by § 65. The Court narrowly construed the term ‘bingo’ a......
  • State v. $223,405.86
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2016
    ...earliest rejections by our courts of attempts to misuse local bingo amendments occurred a little over 20 years ago. In City of Piedmont v. Evans, 642 So.2d 435 (Ala.1994), this Court held that "instant bingo" was a form of lottery prohibited by § 65. The Court narrowly construed the term "b......
  • Fraternal Order of Eagles Sheridan v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 10, 2006
    ...constitutional mandate, pull tabs were called "instant bingo" in the legislation. Stephan, 887 P.2d at 129. 11. See City of Piedmont v. Evans, 642 So.2d 435 (Ala. 1994); and People v. 8,000 Punchboard Card Devices, 142 Cal.App.3d 618, 191 Cal.Rptr. 154 12. Michelle Tanner testified that a p......
  • Ex Parte State Et Al.(in Re Governor Bob Riley Et Al. v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 30, 2010
    ...lottery and is therefore illegal in Alabama, except where expressly authorized by a constitutional amendment. See City of Piedmont v. Evans, 642 So.2d 435, 436–37 (Ala.1994); and the conduct of bingo, within specified parameters, is authorized in 16 counties and two municipalities by local ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT