State, ex Rel., v. Bissing

12 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Stephan v. Finney

    254 Kan. 632 (Kan. 1994)   Cited 30 times

    173 Kan. at 169. In State, ex rel., v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418 (1955), the challenge to lotteries arose from parimutuel betting on greyhound races in Sedgwick County. G.S. 1949, 21-1510 permitted wagering on races two weeks each year.

  2. Oneida County Fair Board v. Smylie

    86 Idaho 341 (Idaho 1963)   Cited 17 times
    In Oneida, the Court held that pari-mutuel betting was not contrary to the constitutional prohibition on lotteries because parimutuel wagering depends, to some extent, on the skill of the gambler and is not solely based on chance.

    Pari mutuel betting constitutes a lottery. Tollet v. Thomas, 6 Q.B. 514 (Eng. 1871); State ex rel. Moore v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418; Opinion of Justices, 249 Ala. 516, 31 So.2d 753. The elements of a lottery have been defined as (1) chance, (2) consideration, and (3) prize.

  3. State ex Rel. Six v. Kansas Lottery

    286 Kan. 557 (Kan. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    Upholding Kansas Expanded Lottery Act [KELA]

    A series of cases proceeded to define what constitutes a lottery. See, e.g., State ex rel. v. Mercantile Association, 45 Kan. 351, 25 Pac. 984 (1891) (distribution of prizes by chance drawing is illegal lottery); In re Smith, Petitioner, 54 Kan. 702, 39 Pac. 707 (1895) (constitutional ban on sale of lottery tickets is self-executing); Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 54 Kan. 711, 39 Pac. 708 (1895) (purchase of goods entitling entry in chance drawing is illegal lottery); The State, ex rel. v. Fair Association, 89 Kan. 238, 131 Pac. 626 (1913) (betting on horse races is gambling); State, ex rel., v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929 (1936) (theater bank night is lottery even though no purchase required); City of Wichita v. Stevens, 167 Kan. 408, 207 P.2d 386 (1949) (punch boards are form of lottery); State v. Brown, 173 Kan. 166, 244 P.2d 1190 (1952) (punch boards constitute illegal lottery); State, ex rel, v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418 (1955) (parimutuel betting on dog racing is a lottery); State ex rel. v. Highwood Service, Inc., 205 Kan. 821, 473 P.2d 97 (1970) (giveaway radio show involves no consideration; game is not a lottery); State v. Nelson, 210 Kan. 439, 502 P.2d 841 (1972) (slot machines are form of lottery). In the 1974 general election, the state adopted a constitutional amendment permitting games of bingo to be conducted by certain nonprofit organizations.

  4. State ex Rel. Stephan v. Finney

    251 Kan. 559 (Kan. 1992)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the power to bind the state to an Indian gaming compact is "legislative"

    Lambeth v. Levens, 237 Kan. 614, 623, 702 P.2d 320 (1985). Examples of specific acts falling within the constitutionally prohibited conduct include bingo and slot machines ( State v. Nelson, 210 Kan. 439, 502 P.2d 841; parimutuel betting on dog races ( State, ex rel., v. Bessing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418); theater bank nights ( State, ex rel., v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929); and a "playing policy" ( State ex rel. v. Mercantile Association, 45 Kan. 351, 25 P. 984). The following amendments narrowed the lottery prohibition:

  5. State et al. v. Nixon

    270 Ind. 192 (Ind. 1979)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that pari-mutuel wagering on horse races was unconstitutional

    Opinion of the Justices, (1971) 287 Ala. 334, 251 So.2d 751; Oneida County Fair Board v. Smylie, (1963) 86 Ida. 341, 386 P.2d 374; Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Assoc., (1954) 227 La. 45, 78 So.2d 504; Ginsberg v. Centennial Turf Club, (1952) 126 Colo. 471, 251 P.2d 926; Longstreth v. Cook, (1949) 215 Ark. 72, 220 S.W.2d 433; Rohan v. Detroit Racing Assoc., (1945) 314 Mich. 326, 22 N.W.2d 433; People v. Postma, (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 814, 160 P.2d 221; Engle v. State, (1939) 53 Ariz. 458, 90 P.2d 988; People v. Monroe, (1932) 349 Ill. 270, 182 N.E. 439; Multnomah County Fair Assoc. v. Langley, (1932) 140 Or. 172, 13 P.2d 354; Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club, (1931) 238 Ky. 739, 38 S.W.2d 987; Utah State Fair Assoc. v. Green, (1926) 68 Utah 251, 249 P. 1016; Reilly v. Gray, (Sup. Ct. 1894) 77 Hun. 402, 28 N.Y.S. 811; Courts in two jurisdictions have held that such wagering to constitute a lottery. State ex rel. Moore v. Bissing, (1955) 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418; State ex rel. Sorenson v. Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co., (1929) 18 Neb. 851, 226 N.W. 705. The grounds upon which these cases have been decided have varied.

  6. Opinion of the Justices

    385 A.2d 695 (Del. 1978)   Cited 8 times
    Striking down Football Bonus and Touchdown because they awarded prizes on a pari-mutuel basis in violation of the State's Constitution

    " Opinion of the Justices, Ala.Supr., 249 Ala. 516, 31 So.2d 753, 761 (1947) [approved Opinion of the Justices, Ala.Supr., 287 Ala. 334, 251 So.2d 751, 753 (1971)]. By comparison, the minority view is supported by the following few authorities cited by the proponents: Pompano Horse Club v. State, Fla.Supr., 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801 (1927) and State v. Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co., Nebr.Supr., 226 N.W. 705 (1929) (combining discussion of lotteries and gambling generally); State ex rel. Moore v. Bissing, Kan.Supr., 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418 (1955) (in which the word "lottery" is defined in detail in the constitutional provision); Streeper v. Auditorium Kennel Club, N.J. Supr., 13 N.J.Misc. 584, 180 A. 212 (1935). Clearly, therefore, prevailing case law does not warrant the conclusion that the drafters of the 1973 Revision intended, by implication, to encompass unlimited pool-selling and pari-mutuel betting within the word "Lotteries."

  7. State, Ex. Rel., v. Bissing

    210 Kan. 389 (Kan. 1972)   Cited 10 times

    On appeal by the state this court reversed, ruling that the activities in question constituted a lottery in violation of the state constitution. The action was remanded for further proceedings in the trial court consistent with this court's decision ( State, ex rel., v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418). On June 30, 1955, pursuant to this court's mandate, the district court of Sedgwick county entered a permanent injunction, incorporating this court's judgment, in personam against Dr. Bissing, the Wichita Greyhound Club, and all agents, servants and employees of each of them, and in rem against the premises, prohibiting use of the premises in connection with a lottery and gambling in the form of bookmaking, pool selling, betting and wagering on dog races.

  8. State v. Nelson

    502 P.2d 841 (Kan. 1972)   Cited 36 times
    In Nelson, Justice Kaul referenced Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) in noting that "bingo" had been defined as a game similar to lotto or keno on a card with a five-number grid or a dice game with petty merchandise as stakes.

    This court has steadfastly adhered to the constitutional provision by striking down such efforts. ( The State ex rel. v. Mercantile Association, 45 Kan. 351, 25 P. 984, [distribution of prizes by chance]; In re Smith, Petitioner, 54 Kan. 702, 39 P. 707, [sale of lottery tickets]; The State, ex rel. v. Fair Association, 89 Kan. 238, 131 P. 626, [bets on horse races]; State, ex rel., v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929, [theater bank night]; City of Wichita v. Stevens, 167 Kan. 408, 207 P.2d 386, [punch boards]; State v. Brown, 173 Kan. 166, 244 P.2d 1190, [punchboards]; State, ex rel., v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418, [parimutuel betting on dog races].) It has been firmly established from these cases as the law of this state that a lottery has three essential elements; namely, (1) consideration, (2) prize, and (3) chance.

  9. State, ex Rel., v. Highwood Service, Inc.

    205 Kan. 821 (Kan. 1970)   Cited 18 times
    In State ex rel. v. Highwood Service, Inc., 205 Kan. 821, 473 P.2d 97 (1970), we determined that tuning in a giveaway television program was not consideration; therefore, the game was not a lottery.

    The court has held that the essential elements of a lottery are three: (1) Consideration, (2) prize, and (3) chance. ( State, ex rel., v. Bissing, 178 Kan. 111, 283 P.2d 418.) The defendant concedes, in the case now before us, that two of these elements, i.e., prize and chance, are present in its Dialing for Dollars program, but it asserts that the element of consideration is lacking.

  10. Attorney General Opinion No

    97-26 (Ops.Kan.Atty.Gen. Mar. 17, 1997)

    There are three essential elements of a lottery: (1) consideration, (2) prize and (3) chance. See State ex rel. Stephan v. Parrish , 256 Kan. 746 (1994); State v. Finney , supra; State, ex rel. v. Highwood Services, Inc ., 205 Kan. 821, 823 (1970); State, ex rel. v. Bissing , 178 Kan. 111, 117 (1955). A bet also involves these elements.