Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether section 11.2(a) of the Riverboat Gambling Act violated the Illinois Constitution's special legislation clause by allowing a nonoperational licensee to renew its license and relocate. The court held that the classification, which benefited Emerald Casino, was rationally related to legitimate economic-development and tourism objectives and did not improperly undermine the Illinois Gaming Board's regulatory authority. The court affirmed dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint.
Holdings
- Section 11.2(a) does not violate the special legislation clause because, although it benefits a select group consisting only of Emerald, its classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests in economic development, tourism, and revenue for education.
Questions Presented
- Whether section 11.2(a) of the Riverboat Gambling Act violates the special legislation clause of article IV, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution by benefiting Emerald Casino as the only licensee meeting the statutory classification.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill. 2d 142, 146-47 (2003)(followed)
- Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106, 122 (2004)(followed)
- Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520, 536 (2004)(followed)
- Neade v. Portes, 193 Ill. 2d 433, 439 (2000)(followed)
- Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 208 Ill. 2d 12, 21-22 (2003)(followed)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 391 (1997)(followed)
- In re Estate of Jolliff, 199 Ill. 2d 510, 519-20 (2002)(followed)
- Miller v. Rosenberg, 196 Ill. 2d 50, 58-59 (2001)(followed)
- King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1, 26 (2005)(followed)
- Schoeberlein v. Purdue University, 129 Ill. 2d 372, 379 (1989)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…