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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT