ILNews

Judges ask Supreme Court to answer lottery law questions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided it needs some assistance from the Indiana Supreme Court to decide whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s ticket-distribution system constitutes a lottery under Indiana law.

In July, the 7th Circuit split in reversing the District Court’s dismissal of claims against the NCAA and Ticketmaster that the defendants’ ticket-distribution scheme constituted a lottery in violation of Indiana law. The plaintiffs, who didn’t receive tickets under the distribution system, filed the lawsuit. They claimed the NCAA’s policy of keeping a $6 handling fee per application for tickets –whether someone received tickets or not - was an illegal lottery.

The NCAA petitioned for a rehearing, but instead of granting it, the judges asked the Supreme Court to answer three certified questions regarding Indiana law.

“We do note that the question of whether this ticket-distribution system constitutes a lottery under Indiana law is a close one, and our holding could have far-reaching effects on sports-ticket-distribution systems utilized by the NCAA and others,” wrote the judges in the per curium opinion, Tom George, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association No. 09-3667.

The three questions are:
1. Do the plaintiffs’ allegations about the NCAA’s method for allocating scarce tickets to championship tournaments describe a lottery that would be unlawful under Indiana law?

2. If the plaintiffs’ allegations describe an unlawful lottery, would the NCAA’s method for allocating tickets fall within the Ind. Code Section 35-45-5-1(d) exception for “bona fide business transactions that are valid under the law of contracts”?

3. If the plaintiffs’ allegations describe an unlawful lottery, do plaintiffs’ allegations show that their claims are subject to an in pari delecto defense as described in Lesher v. Baltimore Football Club, 496 N.E.2d 785, 789-790 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), and Swain v. Bussell, 10 Ind. 438, 442 (1858)?

The judges vacated their earlier opinion and stayed the appeal while the Supreme Court considers the matter.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Should be beat this rap, I would not recommend lion hunting in Zimbabwe to celebrate.

  2. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  3. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  4. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  5. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

ADVERTISEMENT