State Gaming Control Bd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County, 5035
| Decision Date | 24 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5035,5035 |
| Parties | STATE GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, and Honorable John F. Sexton, District Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Supreme Court of Nevada.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1966.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., and Don W. Winne, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for petitioner.
Edward G. Marshall, Clark County Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Foley Brothers, by Thomas A. Foley, Las Vegas, for Mr. Ruby Kolod.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review a stay order of the district court preventing the State Gaming Control Board from proceeding further in an administrative action by the board against Ruby Kolod, the D. I. Operating Company, and Karat, Inc., who are licensees authorized to engage in gaming in Nevada. The administrative action was commenced under the authority of the Gaming Control Act, NRS, ch. 463, to revoke the gaming license of Ruby Kolod and to eliminate his interests in the D. I. Operating Company and Karat, Inc. It was precipitated by the felony conviction of Ruby Kolod in April 1965, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado adjudging him guilty of a conspiracy to transmit in interstate commerce communications containing threats to injure and murder one Robert Sunshine. The board charged that Kolod is unsuitable to hold a gaming license because of the felony conviction and also because of his association with Felix Antonio Alderisio who is alleged to be a leader in organized crime. Kolod has appealed the felony conviction and the appeal has not been decided. The district court stopped the administrative action. It ordered that 'the status quo be maintained until there is a final disposition of the case under appeal,' referring to the Colorado federal court conviction and pending appeal. It is this order that is challenged by the instant proceeding.
The district court was without jurisdiction to stay the administrative proceeding initiated by the board. The State Constitution, art. 6, § 6, does not authorize court intrusion into the administration, licensing, control, supervision and discipline of gaming, and the Gaming Control Act expressly forbids court intervention by writ or 'other equitable proceedings.' NRS 463.315(13). 1 Only court review of a final order or decision of the Nevada Gaming Commission is permissible. NRS 463.315(1). 2 It is emphatically clear that a court is powerless to prevent the occurrence of an administrative hearing before the Nevada Gaming Commission. Any effort to obstruct the orderly administrative process provided by the Gaming Control Act casts serious doubt upon the ability of Nevada to control the privileged enterprise of gaming. Control does not exist if regulatory procedures are not allowed to operate. Courts owe fidelity to the legislative purpose and must not block the Gaming Control Board in its effort to discharge assigned duties. The stay order was, and is, void and of no effect.
The respondent challenges the propriety of certiorari. The writ shall issue when an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. NRS 34.020(2). If one of the essentials is missing, the writ should not be granted. State ex rel. Schumacher v. First Judicial District Court, 77 Nev. 408, 365 P.2d 646 (1961). Here the respondent's challenge is bottomed on the proposition that the stay order is appealable. We are referred to the rules of civil procedure concerning injunctions and appeal, NRCP 62(c); 65; 72(b)(2). The rules of civil procedure do not apply to special statutory proceedings if inconsistent or in conflict. NRCP 81(a). 3 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maheu v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County, Dept. No. 6
...within jurisdiction of district court. Culinary Workers v. District Court, 66 Nev. 166, 207 P.2d 990 (1949), Gaming Control Bd. v. District Court, 82 Nev. 38, 409 P.2d 974 (1966). B. Court's declination to use jurisdiction it Roberts et al. v. Second Judicial District Court, 43 Nev. 332, 18......
-
Aladdin Hotel Corp. v. Nevada Gaming Commission
...relief is apparently not available in the state courts. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.315(5), (13); State Gaming Control Board v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 82 Nev. 38, 409 P.2d 974 (1966). However, while irreparable harm is a prerequisite to the issuance of injunctive relief, it alone does not ......
-
State v. Glusman
...to restrict the availability of injunctive relief by the judiciary in gaming matters is well established. Gaming Control Bd. v. Dist. Ct., 82 Nev. 38, 409 P.2d 974 (1966). If appellants' position were to prevail, it would render NRS 463.343 selectively nugatory and allow effective avoidance......
-
State v. Rosenthal
...463.023; 463.040. Their powers are comprehensive. NRS 463.130--144. Court intrusion is limited. As we noted in Gaming Control Bd. v. Dist. Ct., 82 Nev. 38, 409 P.2d 974 (1966): 'Any effort to obstruct the orderly administrative process provided by the Gaming Control Act casts serious doubt ......