Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Casino Association of New Jersey, Inc. v. Casino Control Commission

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY


July 3, 2006

CASINO ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, BALLY'S PARK PLACE, INC. T/A BALLY'S HOTEL CASINO, BALLY'S WILD WEST CASINO AND CLARIDGE CASINO; BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION T/A CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY; RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ, LLC T/A ATLANTIC CITY HILTON; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT; TRUMP MARINA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP MARINA HOTEL CASINO; TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO; ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC. T/A TROPICANA CASINO & RESORT; MARINA ASSOCIATES T/A HARRAH'S CASINO HOTEL; ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT, INC. T/A SHOWBOAT HOTEL CASINO; RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. T/A RESORTS ATLANTIC CITY; MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA; AND ACE GAMING, LLC D/B/A SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO; PLAINTIFFS-MOVANTS,
v.
CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JON CORZINE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Associate Justice James R. Zazzali

The within matter having been initiated by the Casino Association of New Jersey, which filed a motion with this Court pursuant to Rule 2:9-8 seeking emergent relief in the form of a single-Justice order for temporary restraints and an issuance of a writ in lieu of mandamus to respondents Governor Corzine and the Casino Control Commission;

And the movants having argued that the loss or suspension of the use of a casino license for even a short period of time would inflict devastating harm on the gaming industry, the State, and its citizens and would constitute an unconstitutional taking;

And respondents having answered that relief is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine and that movants are not otherwise entitled to the relief requested;

And the Appellate Division previously having denied relief to movants pending disposition of the appeal in that court;

And the Court having carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties;

And the Court having heard oral argument today, July 3, 2006, and having given due consideration to the arguments of counsel;

And the Court being satisfied that movants have not established sufficient grounds for relief;

It is on this 3rd day of July, 2006, ORDERED that the motion for emergent relief is DENIED.

20060703

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.