N.C. Lottery lawsuit dismissed

Comment #23

csfb — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:53:54 GMT

Justxploring said: "Just don't look up your numbers while driving."

Ha, ha. Haven't reached that point yet. Hope I'll never will. Good advice though.

Good Luck to you. I really hope you'll get the big one in Florida

Comment #22

csfb — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:37:04 GMT

The appropriate legal terminology is "pursuasive".

A court decision in one state does not create a precedent in another state, but is merely pursuasive, i.e. when the same legal issues are involved.

Comment #21

KY Floyd — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:46:10 GMT

In my first response I didn't see my comments as a disagreement with your statements, but rather an expansion on them. I expanded on your statement because I saw the general concept as significant to the belief that the decision might be a landmark. That expansion was mostly incidental to my comments as a whole, which were directed at the possible future relevance of the case. As a decision from a Superior Court it will be written up and well documented, with thorough summaries readily available... [ More ]

Comment #20

Todd — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:44:50 GMT

No, no, no.

It is a superior court, which is seated somewhere in the state, and the ruling is binding to the entire state, not just one jurisdiction.

You're the one who brought up something about manditory precident . I really don't think that term exists as a de-facto legal term. Precident is precident. I'm not sure why you created a new form of precident called manditory .

I started out by saying that the ruling would not create precident in other states, but it is a landmark... [ More ]

Comment #19

KY Floyd — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:31:36 GMT

Todd wrote:

<< I believe you are incorrect concerning the legal terminology. The word precident carries legal weight, and to say that one state's ruling creates precident in another state is incorrect. Even a non-manditory precident . The only thing it can do is to guide a judge in one state to understand what motivated a judge in another state. That is the complete extent of the legal

weight in another state. >>

I think we're just looking at it differently, rather than disagre... [ More ]

Comment #18

BevsPicks — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:23:42 GMT

I'm willing to bet real $$$ that 70-80% of those against the lottery in NC will purchase a ticket, or two, or when the powerball gets up to $100M a hundred dollars trying to win.

Comment #17

othertrucker — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:37:09 GMT

I wish there was a way to keep up with the names of all the people in NC who were against the lottery. That way if they win any money in a lottery it could be taken away from them and their butts $panked.

Comment #16

NCPicks — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:13:41 GMT

It looks like NC will have to sharpen up some wooden stakes and call Buffy because it seems Robert Orr just doesn't get it.In remarks made after todays ruling Orr stated, This is not a single-elimination tournement.There are other games to be played.

Indeed,Orr has been playing his game with the lottery for quite some time now.The ultra-right has been playing their game with NC for 20+ years.Now it is time for them to be stilled.

Oh well,if it comes to it,the lottery will have to beat the... [ More ]

Comment #15

masslottery — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:41:25 GMT

win lawsuit 450 370 lose lawsuit 718 795

Comment #14

masslottery — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:38:23 GMT

win lawsuit 450 370 lose lawsuit 718 795

Comment #13

justxploring — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:41:00 GMT

Excellent! I LOVE how you stood up for your principles! The guy starts spouting some garbage about the lottery and you give him the boot -- how great is that?!

Aw...

Comment #12

Todd — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:30:25 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on March 21, 2006 I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a d-a-t-e (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor? Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material... [ More ]

Comment #11

Todd — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:27:51 GMT

Well, I make it a point to stay on top of these things, and I have never heard of such a ruling. The fact is that there just isn't much of an opportunity to have a case like this heard.

To say it is widespread is false for a number of reasons, first and foremost, just the fact that it is so rare to have a case like this in front of a judge.

As to KY Floyd's remarks, I believe you are incorrect concerning the legal terminology. The word precident carries legal weight, and to say that... [ More ]

Comment #10

rsparks59 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:18:25 GMT

I live in North Carolina. This is a great day for this state. All I can say is Let the Games Begin .

Comment #9

justxploring — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:16:26 GMT

I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a d-a-t-e (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor? Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material possessions, but I'll be the same poor slob in my heart an... [ More ]

Comment #8

KY Floyd — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:05:54 GMT

If you're a member of society everyone else in that society affects your lifestyle one way or another. Right now 49% of US voters are being governed by somebody elected by the other 51%, which is about how things worked 10, 20 and 50 years ago, too.

For the most part, the only people who get a tangible benefit from lotteries are the small percentage who win more than they lose, the politicians who raise revenue without raising taxes, and the people who don't play the lottery. Anyone who's an... [ More ]

Comment #7

Drivedabizness — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:41:40 GMT

Hey Todd:

The concept of lotteries not being a tax is pretty widespread (they are widely defined as a source of non-tax revenue) and I do believe there have been several rulings - though I must confess I cannot name individual states off the top of my head.

Glad to see there is a judge somewhere that is capable of issuing such a clear ruling.

Comment #6

KY Floyd — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:41:12 GMT

<< Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses. >>

Cool. If it gets more expensive for all the meddlesome moralizers who think they know what's bad for us to continue their meddling, maybe they'll cut back a bit.

Todd wrote:

<< Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.

I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.

A judge ruled that... [ More ]

Comment #5

dphillips — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:41:16 GMT

And all the people said, Amen! I've often wondered why some people worry about what the poor are doing, especially if the poor do not affect their particular lifestyle.

Finally, all North Carolinians, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy should be celebrating that North Carolina has a lottery because the lottery benefits everyone: people who win the lottery invest their dollars back into the community -- their purchasing power increases substantially -- creating jobs for everyone, to... [ More ]

Comment #4

BevsPicks — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:39:50 GMT

Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses.

Darn it! It's about d#mn time someone in North Carolina got some B#*ls. Way to go Hight

Comment #3

NCPicks — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:33:48 GMT

I have a suggestion for Robert Orr - DROP IT!

Oh,and one more thing...pay the cashier on your way out.

Comment #2

Bradly_60 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:31:58 GMT

Welcome to the lottery world North Carolina!!!!!

Glad to see you join us even though a few people put up a fuss for who knows whatever reason.

Brad

Comment #1

Todd — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:24:28 GMT

Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.

I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.

A judge ruled that the lottery is not a tax. That completely destroys one of the arguments put forth continually by people who think the lottery is some kind of evil social engineering plot against poor people. ( Poor people get taxed more than wealthy people because they play th... [ More ]

N.C. Lottery lawsuit dismissed

Lottery Post — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:17:35 GMT

North Carolina lottery will not be blocked

A Superior Court judge ruled today that the lottery legislation is not a tax, and threw out a lawsuit challenging how lawmakers created the state lottery.

Superior Court Judge Henry Chip Hight of Franklin County dismissed the lawsuit filed by the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law representing several taxpayers and interest groups.

No person is forced to purchase a lottery ticket, Hight wrote in an 11-page ruling. The lottery act does n... [ More ]