Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed summary judgment declaring Midwestern Enterprises' Lucky Strike two-minute phone card dispensing device a gambling apparatus and a coin-operated gaming device under North Dakota law. The court held that the chance to win cash prizes constituted consideration, prize, and chance, despite the device dispensing a phone card and offering limited free game pieces. The court also held that the device did not qualify for the bona fide vending-machine exception because it incorporated gambling features.
Holdings
- The Lucky Strike device was a gambling apparatus under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-28-01(3) because it was used in the playing phases of gambling activity. The device involved consideration, a chance-based prize, and a prize, even though each paid play also delivered a phone card.
- The availability of a limited number of free game pieces did not eliminate consideration or exempt the Lucky Strike game from North Dakota's gambling and lottery definitions.
- The Lucky Strike device was a coin-operated gaming device under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-28-02(4)(a) and did not qualify for the bona fide vending-machine exception because gambling features were incorporated into it.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Lucky Strike device was a gambling apparatus under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-28-01(3), based on whether the game constituted gambling under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-28-01(1).
- Whether the availability of free game pieces meant that the Lucky Strike game lacked consideration and was merely a promotional sweepstakes rather than gambling or a lottery.
- Whether the Lucky Strike device was a coin-operated gaming device under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-28-02(4)(a) and whether it qualified for the bona fide vending-machine exception in § 12.1-28-02(4)(b).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 ND 3, 603 N.W.2d 906(followed)
- Jones v. Barnett, 2000 ND 207, 619 N.W.2d 490(followed)
- Middlemas v. Strutz, 71 N.D. 186, 299 N.W. 589 (1941)(followed)
- State v. Apodoca, 32 N.M. 80, 251 P. 389 (1926)(followed by analogy)
- Boynton v. Ellis, 57 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1932)(followed by analogy)
- Mueller v. Wm. F. Stoecker Cigar Co., 89 Neb. 438, 131 N.W. 923 (1911)(followed by analogy)
- State v. Branney, 62 Wyo. 40, 160 P.2d 972 (1945)(followed by analogy)
- Kirk v. Morrison, 108 Fla. 144, 146 So. 215 (1933)(followed by analogy)
- Ferguson v. State, 178 Ind. 568, 99 N.E. 806 (1912)(followed by analogy)
- Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20, 37 S.E. 96 (1900)(followed by analogy)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…