David Barber, Emory Folmar, and Christopher Murphy v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/13/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080805 D a v i d B a r b e r , Emory F o l m a r , and C h r i s t o p h e r Murphy v. Cornerstone Community O u t r e a c h , I n c . , and Freedom T r a i l Ventures, L t d . 1080806 Governor Bob R i l e y v. Cornerstone Community O u t r e a c h , I n c . , and Freedom T r a i l Ventures, L t d . A p p e a l s f r o m Lowndes C i r c u i t C o u r t (CV-09-900019) MURDOCK, Justice. On D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , G o v e r n o r B o b R i l e y i s s u e d E x e c u t i v e Order N o . 44 c r e a t i n g Gambling purpose ("the Task the Governor's Force"). o f t h e Task Force was uniform statewide enforcement and to carry policy order of created t h e Task statewide any circuit court on stated "promoting Illegal that the and s u p p o r t i n g and i l l e g a l strong public gambling." The p r o s e c u t o r t o s e r v e a s t h e commander who, i n that jurisdiction" regular, order Constitution's schemes a special Force, attend of lottery Force o f Alabama's a n t i - g a m b l i n g laws o u t t h e Alabama against "have The Task capacity, i s empowered t o "conduct investigations, to adjourned or special ... f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n session o f any of or the prosecution any c r i m i n a l case o r t h ep r o s e c u t i o n o r defense o f any case related to gambling activity Governor Riley Attorney D a v i d B a r b e r as Task Cornerstone obtained County a appointed former Community license from i n the State Jefferson Force t o operate a bingo-gaming 2 Alabama." County District commander. Outreach, t h e Town of I n c . ("Cornerstone"), o f White facility, Hall i n Lowndes which i s known a s 1080805 and 1080806 the White H a l l Entertainment Center outside its t h e EC advertises customers. The EC ("the E C " ) . t h a t t h e EC contains offers several An LCD "HOT screen SLOTS!" f o r hundred electronic gaming machines t h a t are p l a y e d by hundreds o f customers day. Cornerstone purportedly obtained i t s license every so t h a t i t c o u l d o p e r a t e c h a r i t y b i n g o games i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A m e n d m e n t No. § 674, 3, A l a . Const. 1901 ( L o c a l Amendments, Lowndes A l a . Const. 1901 Pursuant i t s mandate, 2009, to executed approximately which 105 (Off. Recomp.)). search the warrant electronic Task on the Force EC on and gaming machines, 1 March t h e g a m e s p l a y e d a t t h e EC, Cornerstone. Cornerstone against In filed Governor official the early an action Riley, and the s e r v e r s to the on March Lowndes in his official Task Force in their 2009, Circuit Court capacity, Barber, official 3 in certain capacities A p p r o x i m a t e l y 850 e l e c t r o n i c g a m i n g m a c h i n e s r e m a i n e d t h e EC f o l l o w i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . 1 by 19, c a p a c i t y as t h e T a s k F o r c e commander, and o t h e r members o f t h e proceeds v a r i o u s records kept afternoon in 19, confiscated t h o s e machines were a t t a c h e d , over $500,000 i n from his a County, at 1080805 and 1080806 (collectively among o t h e r "the R i l e y defendants"). injunctive electronic gaming m a c h i n e s by Cornerstone Const. seized under § 1901, 3 the and a the whether Task Force injunction interference belief seized that the the i s permitted Code sought, machines, 1975. servers, i n the that and the its bingo 674, Ala. machines "slot machines" Cornerstone Task at of gaming illegal d i r e c t i n g the requested Force the EC records a from any during the Task Force to based l e g a l under Alabama Freedom T r a i l V e n t u r e s , L t d . a motion to intervene electronic and Specifically, u n d e r A m e n d m e n t No. i t s operation are seizure declaring r e s t r a i n i n g the with machines the the Task Force. constitute p e n d e n c y o f t h i s a c t i o n and all regarding judgment 13A-12-27, A l a . preliminary further relief requested a t t h e EC by Cornerstone t h i n g s , a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t and p r e l i m i n a r y permanent operation 2 return on its law. ("FTV"), s u b s e q u e n t l y filed a c t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t i t owned at T h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s a r e Emory F o l m a r , as administrator o f t h e Alabama B e v e r a g e C o n t r o l B o a r d , and C o l o n e l Christopher M u r p h y , as d i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y . 2 A m e n d m e n t No. 674 provides, in pertinent part: "The operation o f b i n g o games f o r p r i z e s o r money by nonprofit organizations for charitable, educational or other lawful p u r p o s e s s h a l l be l e g a l i n t h e Town o f W h i t e H a l l " 3 4 1080805 and 1080806 least it some o f t h e m a c h i n e s seized by the Task Force had l e a s e d those machines t o Cornerstone. g r a n t e d FTV's m o t i o n participate i n f o rthe l i m i t e d purpose the and t h a t The t r i a l court of allowing i tto preliminary-injunction phase of the proceeding. Shortly trial to after the seizure of property court held a conference c a l l schedule a injunction. Cornerstone hearing Because on with the p a r t i e s ' attorneys the the a t t h e EC, t h e motion Task for a Force's action t o s h u t down i t s o p e r a t i o n a t t h e E C , r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g be h e l d i m m e d i a t e l y . the Task Force and Governor defendants be given Cornerstone stated if, a that i n t h e meantime, Riley, week to i twould i t would Barber prepare agree preliminary caused Cornerstone On b e h a l f o f requested that the f o r the hearing. to Barber's timetable be p e r m i t t e d t o c o n t i n u e i t s o p e r a t i o n s a t t h e EC w i t h o u t t h e t h r e a t o f a n o t h e r r a i d b y t h e Task Force d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h i s a c t i o n . r e f u s e d t o agree t h a t i t would and thus the t r i a l the conference refrain The T a s k F o r c e f r o m r e - r a i d i n g t h e EC, c o u r t s e t t h e h e a r i n g f o r two days call. 5 after 1080805 and 1080806 During trial who a two-day preliminary-injunction hearing, c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e members o f t h e T a s k F o r c e had executed slot-machine Following granting the search expert, Cornerstone and the warrant, Daryl FTV's the and ordering the from the Task Robert gambling hearing, Cornerstone injunction, Sertell, them t o r e f r a i n FTV's court entered an for a defendants trial court's addition, granted, Court's On they a issuance of this stay to April a n d on A p r i l of the preliminary 21, 2009, return a l l and o r d e r i n g (case no. 1080806) (case no. 1080805) determination of these preliminary action. of the preliminary requested, order with Cornerstone's operation On M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , G o v e r n o r R i l e y t h e members o f t h e T a s k F o r c e from Valandra. request Riley t h e EC d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y and Joseph trial from i n t e r f e r i n g Force's expert, p r o p e r t y s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e M a r c h 19, 2009, r a i d , at the appealed the injunction. 17, 2009, injunction and this In Court pending this appeals. the Task Force i n t h e Lowndes instituted proceeding forfeiture o f a l l i t e m s s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e M a r c h 19, 2009, 6 Court civil- forfeiture o n t h e EC. Circuit a seeking raid 1080805 and On 1080806 May appellants' 26, brief 2009, on the Riley the m e r i t s of t h e i r court's preliminary injunction. and FTV filed dissolve appeals. the 4 In defendants i n both appeals On May a motion preliminary injunction the to motions dismiss, appeals 29, 2009, filed their of the trial Cornerstone asking this and to Court dismiss Cornerstone and to the FTV The motions t o d i s m i s s r e f e r r e d t o i n the t e x t are a c t u a l l y t h e s e c o n d s u c h m o t i o n s f i l e d b y C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV. C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV a l s o f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s do n o t h a v e the a u t h o r i t y t o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i n an a p p e a l on b e h a l f of the S t a t e . Cornerstone and FTV argue t h a t o n l y the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s a u t h o r i z e d to appeal the t r i a l c o u r t ' s ruling. In a d d i t i o n , A t t o r n e y General Troy K i n g requested, a n d was g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n , t o f i l e a n a m i c u s b r i e f . In h i s b r i e f , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l K i n g " t a k e s no i s s u e w i t h " G o v e r n o r Riley's hiring his own legal counsel or appearing in l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e S t a t e , b u t he u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o " r e j e c t t h e G o v e r n o r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t he i s v e s t e d w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a p p o i n t a t t o r n e y s who may name a n d a d v a n c e t h e S t a t e ' s l e g a l p o s i t i o n o u t s i d e the d i r e c t i o n and c o n t r o l of the A t t o r n e y General." See A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 3 6 - 1 5 - 2 1 ( " A l l litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e s t a t e , s h a l l be u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n and c o n t r o l of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . " ) . 4 We n o t e t h a t a q u e s t i o n a l s o e x i s t s a s t o C o r n e r s t o n e ' s a n d F T V ' s s t a n d i n g t o s e e k a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e a p p e a l s b a s e d on t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n as t o t h e r e l a t i v e f i e l d s o f a u t h o r i t y o f A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l K i n g and t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s . I t i s not n e c e s s a r y f o r us t o r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e o f s t a n d i n g , however, n o r t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l K i n g , i n l i g h t o f the f a c t t h a t Governor R i l e y i s a p a r t y to t h i s case, see Ex p a r t e Weaver, 570 So. 2d 675, 684 ( A l a . 1990) ("We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e r e may be t i m e s w h e n t h e G o v e r n o r d i s a g r e e s 7 1080805 and 1080806 alleged that the action, along further interfered with rendered the appeals with moot. opposition that the appeals the Since to Task Force's the fact the the these issuance filings, Task Force operation had at defendants filed action the does and u r g i n g t h e C o u r t t o d e c i d e court's civil-forfeiture unnecessary to dismiss civil-forfeiture trial the injunction Riley motions that of Cornerstone's preliminary The filing of the Cornerstone a appeals, not the moot not the EC, and the response in contending the instant issues presented by preliminary injunction. and FTV have filed their with the attorney general about matters in litigation. A l t h o u g h we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s a u t h o r i z e d t o d i r e c t t h e c o u r s e o f a l l l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e S t a t e and its agencies, t h e G o v e r n o r , as 'chief magistrate' of the S t a t e , may intervene i n any such l i t i g a t i o n . ... As an intervenor, the G o v e r n o r may express h i s v i e w s and take p o s i t i o n s c o n t r a r y t o t h o s e a r g u e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l . " ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ) , t h a t a judgment had been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t h i m , a n d t h a t he h a s d u l y f i l e d a n a p p e a l f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t . We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d a n d b r i e f s do n o t c o n t a i n o r r e f l e c t an e f f o r t by A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l K i n g t o i n s t r u c t the R i l e y defendants not to appeal from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment a g a i n s t t h e m , a n d he s p e c i f i c a l l y d o e s n o t " s e e k t o i n t e r v e n e a s a p a r t y " i n t h i s c a s e a n d d o e s n o t " t a k e a p o s i t i o n on t h e m e r i t s of t h i s appeal." Given Governor R i l e y ' s appeal of the judgment entered a g a i n s t him, and i n l i g h t of t h e n a t u r e o f A t t o r n e y General K i n g ' s p o s i t i o n , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s f u r t h e r t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV i n t h e i r f i r s t m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s . 8 1080805 a n d 1080806 appellees' brief regarding themerits preliminary injunction, their o f t h e appeals from t h e brief. reply and t h e R i l e y defendants have filed Mootness We It first has been presented held whether that a r e no l o n g e r cognizable v. consider Davis, McCormack, definition, interest 440 "'a case "live" U.S. 625, 48 6, Court before i s moot when us i s moot. the issues or the p a r t i e s lack a i n t h e outcome.'" 3 9 5 U.S. this the matter 631 4 96 of Los Angeles (19 7 9 ) ( q u o t i n g (1969)). has s a i d County legally Powell Expanding on v. this that "'[t]he test f o r mootness i s commonly s t a t e d as whether the court's a c t i o n on t h e m e r i t s would affect the rights of the parties.' Crawford v. S t a t e , 153 S.W.3d 4 9 7 , 5 0 1 ( T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g VE C o r p . v . E r n s t & Y o u n g , 860 S.W.2d 8 3 , 84 ( T e x . 1993)). 'A c a s e b e c o m e s m o o t i f a t a n y s t a g e t h e r e ceases t o be an a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e parties.' I d . ... (citing National Collegiate A t h l e t i c Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 8 3 , 86 ( T e x . 19 9 9 ) ) . " Chapman v . G o o d e n , omitted; emphasis 974 S o . 2 d 9 7 2 , 983 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) added). 5 "The central issue i n any mootness challenge i s whether changes i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t i n g when t h e a c t i o n was filed have forestalled any meaningful relief: '(T)he q u e s t i o n i s n o t whether t h e 9 (emphasis 1080805 and When one declaratory party's 1080806 or of Demonstrating sues another injunctive conduct cessation" basis, party is the that however, relief wrongful, i s not effort contending showing can easy be to obtain that a action should an an conduct challenged the in the of "voluntary moot the other action. deemed moot on this burden. " V o l u n t a r y c e s s a t i o n of c h a l l e n g e d conduct moots a c a s e . .. o n l y i f i t i s ' a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r t h a t t h e a l l e g e d l y w r o n g f u l b e h a v i o r c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y be expected to recur.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., I n c . , 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . And t h e '"heavy b u r d e n o f p e r s u a [ d i n g ] " the court t h a t the c h a l l e n g e d conduct c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y b e e x p e c t e d t o s t a r t up a g a i n l i e s w i t h the p a r t y a s s e r t i n g mootness.' Friends of E a r t h , [ I n c . v. L a i d l a w E n v t l . S e r v s . (TOC), I n c . , ] 528 U.S. 1 6 7 , 189 (2000) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " Adarand Constructors, (2000). As United the States v. United W.T. Inc. v. States Grant Slater, 528 Supreme C o u r t Co., 345 U.S. U.S. 216, stated earlier 629, 633 (1953), 222 in a precise relief sought at the time the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an i n j u n c t i o n was f i l e d i s s t i l l available. The q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e r e c a n be a n y e f f e c t i v e r e l i e f . ' [West v. S e c r e t a r y o f Dept. of T r a n s p . ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) 206 F. 3d 9 2 0 , 925 (emphasis added; i n t e r n a l quotes o m i t t e d ) ] . " William Practice National Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, James Wagstaffe, Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, E d i t i o n , " M o o t n e s s " L i m i t a t i o n , CH. 2E-3. 10 1080805 and 1080806 "case nevertheless may demonstrate that wrong will States v. be be 'there i s no repeated.'" A l u m i n u m Co. moot i f the reasonable expectation (emphasis of A m e r i c a , defendant added; 148 can that quoting the United F.2d 416, 448 (2d C i r . those of the ordinary 1945)). The facts of this voluntary-cessation volunteering activity words, the is in volunteers and cease property the interference by Cornerstone and agreeing The cease question is i n the the Task not underlying making the underlying this the for and activity. party party the whose action. action that a party action and operation Task Here, i s the machines obtained The other i t is c a s e moot. the In situation, as w e l l as t h e p r o s p e c t Force with asked any here underlying e l e c t r o n i c gaming FTV against to the Task Force, the because voluntary-cessation in the not activity thereby challenged injunction in challenged to cease, by some ordinary r e t e n t i o n of are situation challenged the activity activity to case a the seizure related of f u r t h e r of the EC. preliminary Force is not activity. then becomes whether Cornerstone's w i l l i n g n e s s t o c e a s e c e r t a i n o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s makes a p p e l l a t e 11 1080805 and review court of 1080806 the moot. In voluntarily particular on the to cease assuming expressed otherwise any effort seized entered Cornerstone by the case. As a for present willingness cease provide willingness to and by FTV possess Task Force the have and case purposes the a trial Cornerstone and voluntarily to that relinquish the for adequate a finding for that voluntary cessation only i f i t is Adarand of i n the present conduct "'absolutely clear r e a s o n a b l y be U.S. at 222 Export Ass'n, 199, States 203 explained burden (1968)). i n W.T. As Grant of p e r s u a d i n g a heavy one." U.S. such at as See 203 this the Co. , 345 the also United U.S. court that Concentrated (stating that 12 633, the the expected (quoting 393 U.S. Court movant's s t a n d a r d i s met test one"). that Supreme Phosphate "[t]he i s a stringent at this such challenged of C o n s t r u c t o r s , 528 would mootness, purpose wrongful behavior c o u l d not recur.'" cases agreed use pending U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o n c e n t r a t e d P h o s p h a t e 393 trial the use of the machines i n q u e s t i o n support i s not noted, allegedly to sense, machines p o s s e s s i o n and moots one injunction merits. Even FTV's preliminary Export "is Ass'n, f o r mootness in 1080805 and We their that 1080806 cannot conclude "heavy burden" the expected alleged to machines -- the Cornerstone itself has FTV have could a not small percentage except brief never machines. Court has engaged i n the machines in same machines. A the acts of that manner in limitation the by remain i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n and machines Cornerstone would be to Force, the seized additional Task of that to f o r the purpose read the which inquiry the use have possessing i t has and i t used to exclusion above-quoted already since using those the seized machines of machines specifically of r e p l a c i n g and, that indeed, procured the s e i z e d principle from jurisdiction to decide an appeal. 13 i n turn, this by machines, Adarand C o n s t r u c t o r s more n a r r o w l y t h a n i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p u r p o s e s i n f o r m i n g a d e c i s i o n as t o m o o t n e s s and, EC and o n l y the of Cornerstone been the Furthermore, o b t a i n e d machines to r e p l a c e t h o s e t h a t were s e i z e d June the a continues to operate advised this be Cornerstone EC, for and i t s clear of the of met reasonably of -- remainder and i t i s "absolutely seized; raid o p e r a t i o n o f t h e EC using only were the that behavior First, EC after Cornerstone showing wrongful the interruption ceased of recur." at that of Court's 1080805 and also We 1080806 consider whether injunction are or could remand case the trial court would then be i n order the appeals made m o o t to allow of the p r e l i m i n a r y be at issue of the i f this for a not Court were r e s c i s s i o n by injunction. would preliminary the At bottom, be an to what agreement by C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV t o r e l i n q u i s h t h e i r r i g h t t o e n g a g e i n a n y particular and FTV them. conduct, but rather i n having We a r e aware prevailing party to the t r i a l favoring injunction, cases court court offense "state the proceeding the present i t s posture that city officials, favoring a willingness i n the case by passed in material 529 U.S. an a 277 or i n t e n t i o n a l l y appear P a p ' s A.M. operated violated this seeking declaratory relief 14 court. respects (2000). to Erie in Erie, making i t an in public "Kandyland," ordinance. order preliminary establishment ordinance a returned appellate concerns i s similar city to knowingly establishment an o r d e r t o have the case of a nude-dancing The of nudity." Cornerstone f o r purposes of the r e s c i s s i o n of the t h e owner Pennsylvania. rescind i n which o f C i t y o f E r i e v . P a p ' s A.M., concerned the o f no court i n the t r i a l i t moots Although that the t r i a l an a c q u i e s c e n c e b y an I t sued E r i e in a Erie and and a permanent 1080805 and 1080806 i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t the enforcement of the o r d i n a n c e . eventually which was appealed s t r u c k down the to the Pennsylvania as ordinance Supreme Pap's violating f r e e d o m o f e x p r e s s i o n as p r o t e c t e d by t h e F i r s t Amendments States filed to the Supreme a motion stating United Court to dismiss that i t had establishment in Erie." therefore moot b e c a u s e no effect upon The United is not moot" On the question States granted and Constitution. certiorari the The with an to operate a nude argued " [ t ] h e outcome that of United Pap's along Pap's the this to Fourteenth case, "ceased Court, right The review. case case then affidavit dancing case was will have t h a t "the case [Pap's]." S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t and proceeded to of mootness, the the concluded merits. Court 529 reasoned U.S. as at follows: "Simply closing Kandyland i s not sufficient to render this case moot, however. Pap's is still i n c o r p o r a t e d u n d e r P e n n s y l v a n i a law, and i t c o u l d a g a i n d e c i d e t o o p e r a t e a nude d a n c i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t in Erie. ... M o r e o v e r , our a p p r a i s a l of Pap's a f f i d a v i t i s i n f l u e n c e d by Pap's f a i l u r e , d e s p i t e i t s o b l i g a t i o n to the C o u r t , to mention a word about the potential mootness issue in i t s brief in o p p o s i t i o n to the p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , which was filed in April 1999, even though, as J u s t i c e S c a l i a p o i n t s o u t , K a n d y l a n d was c l o s e d a n d t h a t p r o p e r t y s o l d i n 1998. Pap's o n l y r a i s e d the issue a f t e r t h i s Court granted c e r t i o r a r i . 15 289. 1080805 and 1080806 "In any e v e n t , t h i s i s n o t a r u n o f t h e m i l l v o l u n t a r y c e s s a t i o n case. Here i t i s the p l a i n t i f f who, h a v i n g p r e v a i l e d b e l o w , now s e e k s t o h a v e t h e c a s e d e c l a r e d moot. And i t i s t h e c i t y o f E r i e t h a t seeks t o i n v o k e the f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l power to o b t a i n this Court's review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. The c i t y has an o n g o i n g injury because i t i s barred from e n f o r c i n g the public nudity provisions of i t s ordinance. If the c h a l l e n g e d ordinance i s found c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , then E r i e can e n f o r c e i t , and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f such r e l i e f i s s u f f i c i e n t to prevent the case from b e i n g moot. And Pap's s t i l l has a c o n c r e t e s t a k e i n t h e outcome of t h i s case b e c a u s e , t o the e x t e n t Pap's h a s an i n t e r e s t i n r e s u m i n g o p e r a t i o n s , i t h a s an interest in preserving the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Our interest in p r e v e n t i n g l i t i g a n t s from a t t e m p t i n g to manipulate the Court's jurisdiction to i n s u l a t e a f a v o r a b l e decision from review further counsels against a f i n d i n g of mootness here." 529 U.S. at Unlike 288-89 the successful (citations situation i n having the in Erie, court, there w i l l continue to Nonetheless, the Riley although will have i t i f Cornerstone preliminary injunction the t r i a l restrict omitted). be the no trial actions defendants been the issue of the machines i s l i t i g a t e d legality of of argue rescinded the are by Task Force. the order, that will be cited c o u r t s around the State similar i n other locales. 16 FTV court order that would rescinded, persuasive a u t h o r i t y to other t r i a l and electronic Although as as gaming t h e r e may be 1080805 a n d 1080806 some m e r i t to the Riley on we f i n d balance The other defendants' position i n this regard, i t unpersuasive. factors relied support a conclusion that this present proceeding moot. upon Court Clearly, i n Erie, should however, do not consider the as t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of law t h a t we m u s t c o n s i d e r i n a d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f C o r n e r s t o n e ' s and FTV's l i k e l i h o o d defendants and "concrete Further, the only never i nErie, stopped, machines FTV "continue manner. from a seizure. "still still, to refrain i nErie, attempting have" to stop, Id. again Here, not operating the Riley from any f u r t h e r 17 made against the United "[o]ur interest i npreventing the Court's have seizure of a n d FTV h a v e importantly, like has i nthe defendants a preliminary injunction to manipulate a i t t o be enough t h a t ... a n d i t c o u l d t h e EC, a n d C o r n e r s t o n e P e r h a p s most to incorporated," but i t also no o f f e r Further the Riley 529 U.S. a t 2 8 8 . i n t h e c h a l l e n g e d manner. t o not seek Supreme C o u r t found incorporated a n d makes commitment commitment from " i s still i s Cornerstone no and t h e Supreme C o u r t to operate" challenged made Cornerstone on t h e m e r i t s , b o t h s t a k e i n t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e . " plaintiff decide of success no such States litigants jurisdiction to 1080805 and insulate against We a favorable decision a finding decline prevailing this 1080806 to hold litigant the lower deprives this Court before us. various FTV the of officials. At any one further U.S. apparent at willingness t o have an of a to of of the judgment i n i t s f a v o r to the decide movants, filing a injunction the the matter Cornerstone, complaint i n t h e Lowndes C i r c u i t request, 288. remanded f o r the purpose by a preliminary counsels appeal discretion action their 529 court below the case Here, present sought the court to r e s c i n d State o f f i c i a l s then that i n the allowing initiated review of mootness here." C o u r t d i s m i s s e d and pending from against Court. It against those trial court and State convened a hearing i n which both sides p a r t i c i p a t e d , p r e s e n t i n g witnesses and legal arguments. Cornerstone o b t a i n i n g the r e l i e f t h e y had then sought, Court had of the been 4(a)(1)(A), two and Court as was trial obtained A l a . R. their right, App. P. the R i l e y On and 17, filing defendants' 18 The succeeded Riley FTV. 2009, of the motion in defendants review for injunctive April the FTV appellate Cornerstone o n e - h a l f weeks a f t e r granted requested. court's order by and by this relief that See Rule approximately appeals, to s t a y the this trial 1080805 and court's 1080806 preliminary injunction. days later, filed t h e i r motions s e e k i n g the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Cornerstone and the brief. Riley parties appeals decision. the machines Given as to have, the the legality ongoing s e i z e d by machines by were clearly seized, appeals, that would be Cornerstone and and the the including adverseness questions, discretion we i n the of cannot to proceed the conclude time, merits, their reply and ready gaming of Cornerstone as w e l l that in as for those both sides questions presented in those legal principles of considering of success on the relating to these that to consider these 19 then course the parties on t h e electronic interest likelihood FTV substitution particularly in appeal. preliminary defendants, legal Riley c o n t r o v e r s y between the in and briefed activity concrete addressed FTV's of the filed fully the R i l e y Cornerstone c o n t i n u e to have these turn, continuing live i n q u e s t i o n , the procured in the Since that their brief t h e r e f o r e are u s i n g machines not which of Cornerstone a l s o have f i l e d defendants These 2009, merits the d i s m i s s a l of the a p p e a l s . a n d FTV for 29, the 2009, Three May on 26, filed on brief May defendants i n j u n c t i o n and their On this Court appeals. merits, legal has no 1080805 and The W.T. observation Grant The follows: 6 1080806 Co., Court 345 of the U.S. at summarized United 632, the 6 States is facts Supreme Court in noteworthy: in W.T. Grant Co. as "For the f i r s t time s i n c e the enactment of the C l a y t o n A c t i n 1914 the Court i s c a l l e d upon t o c o n s i d e r § 8's prohibitions against interlocking c o r p o r a t e d i r e c t o r a t e s . The G o v e r n m e n t a p p e a l s f r o m judgments d i s m i s s i n g c i v i l a c t i o n s brought against [ J o h n M.] Hancock and t h r e e p a i r s o f c o r p o r a t i o n s w h i c h he s e r v e d a s a d i r e c t o r , W.T. G r a n t Co. and S.H. Kress & Co., S e a r s R o e b u c k & Co. and Bond S t o r e s , I n c . , a n d K r o g e r Co. a n d J e w e l T e a C o . , Inc. A l l e g i n g t h a t t h e s i z e and c o m p e t i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p of each s e t of companies brought the interlocks w i t h i n t h e r e a c h o f § 8, t h e c o m p l a i n t s a s k e d t h e court to order the p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r l o c k s terminated and to enjoin future v i o l a t i o n s of § 8 by the i n d i v i d u a l and c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s . Soon a f t e r t h e complaints were f i l e d , Hancock r e s i g n e d from the b o a r d s of K r e s s , K r o g e r and Bond. D i s c l o s i n g the r e s i g n a t i o n s by a f f i d a v i t , a l l of the defendants t h e n moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n s as moot. Treated as m o t i o n s f o r summary j u d g m e n t , t h e y w e r e g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Judge. He c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e i s not 'the s l i g h t e s t t h r e a t t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s will a t t e m p t any f u t u r e a c t i v i t y i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 8 ( i f they have v i o l a t e d i t a l r e a d y ) . ' " 345 U.S. a t 630-31 ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . The C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t f a i l e d t o c a r r y i t s b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g on a p p e a l t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t H a n c o c k a n d t h e c o m p a n i e s would attempt to i n t e r l o c k again, though i t observed that "[w]ere we sitting as a trial court, [the government's] s h o w i n g m i g h t be p e r s u a s i v e . " I d . at 634. 20 1080805 and 1080806 "Both s i d e s agree to the a b s t r a c t p r o p o s i t i o n that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal c o n d u c t does not d e p r i v e the t r i b u n a l of power to h e a r a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e c a s e , i . e . , d o e s n o t make t h e c a s e moot. A c o n t r o v e r s y may r e m a i n t o be s e t t l e d i n such circumstances, ... e . g . , a d i s p u t e over the l e g a l i t y o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d p r a c t i c e s . The d e f e n d a n t i s f r e e to r e t u r n to h i s o l d ways. This, together w i t h a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n h a v i n g the l e g a l i t y of the practices s e t t l e d , m i l i t a t e s against a mootness conclusion. F o r t o say t h a t t h e c a s e has become m o o t means t h a t the defendant is entitled to a d i s m i s s a l as a m a t t e r o f r i g h t . The courts have r i g h t l y r e f u s e d to grant defendants such a p o w e r f u l weapon a g a i n s t p u b l i c law e n f o r c e m e n t . " (Emphasis added; Even i f the and therefore c i t a t i o n s and case before i t would doctrine of involving us fall within mootness. of federal challenged conduct could already to treat that be deemed moot Court to d e c i d e at a recognized We courts omitted.) properly beyond the power of t h i s juncture, reluctance footnotes is exception have as discussed moot capable the informs challenged the exception Alabama f o r i s s u e s that are conduct likely to Specifically, settled. to mootness t h a t i n which there A i s great of recurring, R i l e y defendants 21 legality reluctance been r e c o g n i z e d in public interest and recur. the the proceeding similar has the a e s p e c i a l l y where the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s i n h a v i n g the of to this argue that 1080805 and 1080806 "even i f t h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e s that [their] appeal has become moot, i t s h o u l d nonetheless deny the motion [by Cornerstone and FTV to d i s s o l v e the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and t o d i s m i s s t h e appeals] under this Court's 'exception to the general mootness r u l e f o r cases i n v o l v i n g a broad p u b l i c interest.' Chapman v . G o o d e n , 974 So. 2 d 9 7 2 , 989 (Ala. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). T h a t ' e x c e p t i o n e x i s t s f o r a "moot c a s e i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s of g r e a t p u b l i c i m p o r t a n c e , w h i c h may r e c u r i n t h e f u t u r e . " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g 1A C . J . S . A c t i o n s § 81 (2005))." As the Riley explained "'the exception to the nature of public authoritative officers," and defendants criteria for mootness the question," "the (2) likelihood recur." Riley (quoting Chapman v . Gooden, 974 So. A l a b a m a S t a t e E m p l o y e e s ' A s s ' n , 991 mootness present (applying doctrine). case " f a l l s as Court public (1) desirability that 2d § 81 So. the 989 716 The Riley argue s q u a r e l y w i t h i n the e x c e p t i o n " Specifically, 22 10 2007) v. (Ala. Civ. p u b l i c - i n t e r e s t exception of great p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . at Graham the defendants will (Ala. and an public question (2005)), 2d 710, "the of opposition, 972, has interest including "the defendants' ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n 1A C . J . S . A c t i o n s 2007) the this f o r the purpose of g u i d i n g generally App. note, applying doctrine'" determination (3) further to the that the for matters the R i l e y defendants 1080805 and 1080806 argue w i t h regard to the f i r s t the question, as c r i t e r i o n , the p u b l i c nature of follows: "First, there is no question that this case 'involve[s] a matter of public importance.' C h a p m a n , 974 So. 2 d a t 9 8 9 . A c u r s o r y review of the newspapers of this State demonstrates that the legality of so-called electronic bingo that is p l a y e d on s l o t m a c h i n e s i s a p r e s s i n g i s s u e o f g r e a t p u b l i c concern spreading a l l across Alabama. "The i s s u e i s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t b e c a u s e G o v e r n o r R i l e y a n d t h e T a s k F o r c e h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e r e i s no reasonable chance t h a t the machines at i s s u e c o u l d be f o u n d t o be a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n s l o t m a c h i n e s , a n d no r e a s o n a b l e c h a n c e t h a t t h e c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m u s e d t o run them q u a l i f i e s a s t h e game c o m m o n l y known as b i n g o w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f Amendment 674. A r u l i n g by t h i s C o u r t t o t h a t e f f e c t w o u l d s u r e l y put a practical end to this latest effort by gambling interests around the State t o make a mockery of this State's gambling laws, and [ C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV] c l e a r l y know i t . I t i s f o r t h a t r e a s o n and t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e t h a t t h e y seek t o avoid this Court's ruling on that issue. They p r e f e r to delay, continue to rake i n m i l l i o n s d u r i n g t h e d e l a y w i t h p r o c e d u r a l m a n e u v e r s s u c h as those t h e y have engaged i n h e r e and i n other appeals b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , a n d u l t i m a t e l y p i n t h e i r h o p e s on the p o s s i b i l i t y of p o l i t i c a l changes which they b e l i e v e may come w i t h d e l a y . " Riley defendants' Similarly, as opposition, at to the second 11-12. criterion, the desirability o f an a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s as follows: 23 argue 1080805 and 1080806 "There is a clear need for 'an authoritative d e t e r m i n a t i o n ' of t h i s t r o u b l e d area of Alabama law 'for the purpose of guiding public officers.' [ C h a p m a n , 974 S o . 2 d a t 989.] Despite t h i s Court's c l e a r , e m p h a t i c , and r e p e a t e d d i s a p p r o v a l o f e v e r y a r t f u l attempt to circumvent Alabama's a n t i - g a m b l i n g law, see, e.g., B a r b e r v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s o c . , 960 S o . 2 d 5 9 9 , 614 ( A l a . 2006), gambling i n t e r e s t s , as d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h i s c a s e , c o n t i n u e t o f l o u t those laws." Riley defendants' We opposition, need not address at 12. a l l aspects of the R i l e y argument w i t h r e s p e c t t o the f i r s t that we agree w i t h the R i l e y q u e s t i o n b e f o r e us and importance for an parties comes that there us preliminary injunction this to Court before us preliminary on decide an is a in to the should the appeal injunction, as of as form counsel a contention that clear and the of an need on that appeal against a i s p e r m i t t e d by 24 interest pressing fact presented. ruling the to that question. whether issues I t i s enough of great p u b l i c d e t e r m i n a t i o n as disagree before criteria. defendants' i n v o l v e s a matter authoritative The case and two defendants' a from a decision by This request Rule this case for is a 4(a)(1)(A), 1080805 and Ala. R. 1080806 App. appeals, P. just as Finally, regard to exception: T h i s C o u r t has i t does any the the that at interests, such electronic they are "with 974 13. The as so Riley resolution Riley defendants' agree will not the i n the will nature 7 with public-interest there 'will Riley argue is defendants' that continue gambling to operate at issue here, venues a generally around that i t i s "inevitable the that State that the r e t u r n t o t h i s C o u r t and d e l a y i n g serve opposition, that although presented [will] here these follows important, 989." more as the defendants and and of at of the i n more p a s s i n g day," their argue present 2d to decide properly before i t . most Cornerstone, issues presented here We So. gaming machines doing each perhaps questions Chapman, opposition, appeal criterion and the obligation defendants third "Third, certainty recur.' Riley an at legal the interests justice." 13. questions c o n t e x t o f an issuing a preliminary injunction, of presented appeal from an here, order are l e g a l questions of great We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t , i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t k n o w s t h e l e g a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a b i n g o game, t h e n a n y f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c a n f o c u s o n w h e t h e r C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV h a v e demonstrated t h a t the e l e c t r o n i c gaming machines a t i s s u e q u a l i f y under the l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n of the term. 7 25 1080805 and 1080806 public interest indeed already apparent matter, We that and importance have until uncertainty recurred such and time that are in other as conflicting therefore proceed to decide this likely to locales. Court 8 and It addresses outcomes w i l l the present recur is the continue. appeals. 9 B a s e d on t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c o r d s a n d t h e b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d c a s e , we a r e aware o f l i t i g a t i o n concerning the in this l e g a l i t y of s o - c a l l e d " e l e c t r o n i c bingo" machines a l r e a d y p e n d i n g i n , o r on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t f r o m , f i v e c o u n t i e s , namely: J e f f e r s o n , W a l k e r , Lowndes ( t h i s c a s e ) , Etowah, and S t . C l a i r C o u n t i e s , as w e l l as a d e c i s i o n by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Northern D i s t r i c t of Alabama p e r t a i n i n g to Madison County. D e c i s i o n s r e n d e r e d by the t r i a l c o u r t s i n three of these cases f a v o r the proponents of such machines, w h i l e t h r e e o f them h o l d t h a t t h e machines a r e i l l e g a l . None o f t h e s i x d e c i s i o n s e m p l o y s e x a c t l y t h e same l e g a l a n a l y s i s , a l t h o u g h t h e d e c i s i o n s from J e f f e r s o n and Walker C o u n t i e s r e l y u p o n s e v e r a l o f t h e same a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d i n t h e "merits" d i s c u s s i o n below. 8 A s n o t e d , one o f t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t m u s t be s h o w n i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a p r e l i m i n a r y injunction i s "the l i k e l i h o o d of s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s . " I n order to address t h i s element i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , we m u s t f i r s t a s c r i b e m e a n i n g t o t h e t e r m " b i n g o , " t h e t e r m t h a t i s u s e d i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment a t i s s u e h e r e and s i m i l a r amendments a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r locales. I t i s o n l y a g a i n s t t h i s m e a n i n g t h a t we t h e n c a n m e a s u r e t h e f a c t s s h o w n b y C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i f C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV met t h e i r f a c t u a l b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s ( i . e . , d e m o n s t r a t i n g a reasonable likelihood that the machines have the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a " b i n g o game"). 9 We r e j e c t J u s t i c e W o o d a l l ' s a s s e r t i o n i n h i s d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n t h a t o u r h o l d i n g t o d a y i s somehow n o t " a u t h o r i t a t i v e . " Under our r u l e s , p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s are a p r o p e r s u b j e c t 26 1080805 and 1080806 Standard "The decision injunction reviewing Court of to grant i s within the trial an order determines granting a whether the Review or to deny a c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e t i o n . preliminary trial the exceeded that court S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f A l a b a m a , N.A. Co. , 2d fact, So. the injunction ore tenus 709 ( A l a . 2005). rule proceedings. B i r m i n g h a m v. 2009] 706, So. See I n l a n d Lake 3d noted i n Holiday (Ala. 2008), , Isle, is ( A l a . 2009). v. [Ms. As Adkins, v. to & questions So. of preliminarySewer Bd. 1070030, Aug. this 12 Webb-Stiles in Works I n v s . , LLC, LLC As applicable Water In injunction, discretion." 931 preliminary Court 3d of 28, recently 1173, 1176 however, "[t]o the extent that the t r i a l c o u r t ' s issuance i of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s grounded only in q u e s t i o n s of law based on u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , our longstanding rule that we review an injunction s o l e l y to determine whether the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n should not apply. We f i n d t h e r u l e a p p l i e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e Supreme C o u r t i n s i m i l a r of a p p e a l s t o t h i s C o u r t , and t h i s C o u r t i s o b l i g a t e d t o d e c i d e s u c h a p p e a l s , no l e s s t h a n we a r e o b l i g a t e d t o d e c i d e appeals of permanent i n j u n c t i o n s . I f , i n d e c i d i n g s u c h an a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s i t n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i d e some l e g a l q u e s t i o n , o u r d e c i s i o n as t o t h a t l e g a l q u e s t i o n i s no l e s s a u t h o r i t a t i v e t h a n i f t h a t l e g a l q u e s t i o n was p r e s e n t e d t o u s i n an a p p e a l f r o m a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n . 27 1080805 and 1080806 s i t u a t i o n s t o b e p e r s u a s i v e : 'We r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t Court's legal rulings de novo a n d i t s u l t i m a t e decision to issue the preliminary injunction f o r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' G o n z a l e s v. O C e n t r o E s p i r i t a B e n e f i c e n t e U n i a o d o V e g e t a l , 5 4 6 U.S. 4 1 8 , 4 2 8 , 1 2 6 S. C t . 1 2 1 1 , 1 6 3 L. E d . 2 d 1 0 1 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) " (Emphasis The omitted.) plaintiff sufficient to injunction. 2003). bears support the burden the of issuance Ormco Co. v . J o h n s , producing of a evidence preliminary 869 So. 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1113 (Ala. The r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a r e w e l l known: "'Before entering a preliminary injunction, the t r i a l c o u r t m u s t b e s a t i s f i e d : (1) t h a t w i t h o u t t h e i n j u n c t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l s u f f e r immediate and irreparable injury; (2) t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s n o a d e q u a t e r e m e d y a t l a w ; (3) t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s l i k e l y t o s u c c e e d o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e ; a n d (4) t h a t t h e h a r d s h i p imposed upon t h e d e f e n d a n t by t h e injunction would not unreasonably outweigh the benefit to the p l a i n t i f f . ' " Blount Recycling, (Ala. 2003) (Ala. LLC v. C i t y (quoting Blaylock of Cullman, v. Cary, 884 S o . 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 3 709 So. 2 d 1 1 2 8 , 1130 1997)). Merits The Amendment argue, Riley No. defendants argue that the term "bingo" i n 674 s h o u l d be n a r r o w l y c o n s t r u e d b e c a u s e , they t h e b i n g o amendment i s a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e p r o h i b i t i o n 28 1080805 and 1080806 on lotteries Cornerstone found and i n A r t . I, FTV respond § by 65, A l a . Const. contending that, 1901. under " p l a i n - m e a n i n g " r e a d i n g , Amendment No. 674 d o e s n o t s t a t e it i s an e x c e p t i o n to the l o t t e r y prohibition, that and thus i t s h o u l d n o t be v i e w e d as s u c h . Court s t a t e d t h a t " ' " b i n g o " i s a l o t t e r y ' " and has e x p l i c i t l y The f a c t a i s , however, t h a t this that " ' A m e n d m e n t No. 508 t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a [Calhoun County's bingo amendment] d i d n o t r e p e a l A r t i c l e I V , § 65, o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a . Amendment No. 508 s i m p l y a m e n d e d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a b y a l l o w i n g t h e l o t t e r y o f " b i n g o " t o be operated l e g a l l y i n Calhoun County f o r p r i z e s or money by certain nonprofit organizations for c h a r i t a b l e , e d u c a t i o n a l , or other lawful purposes. The only lottery legalized by t h e passage and r a t i f i c a t i o n o f Amendment No. 508 was a n d i s t h e l o t t e r y of "bingo."'" City of Piedmont 1994)(quoting The in Evans, and a d o p t i n g statement Opinion v. 642 trial So. 2d 435, court's order). i n Evans c o n f i r m e d what t h e C o u r t of the J u s t i c e s 436 ( A l a . explained No. 3 7 3 , 795 S o . 2 d 6 3 0 , 634 2 0 0 1 ) : " S i n c e 1980, Alabama has adopted various (Ala. constitutional amendments c r e a t i n g e x c e p t i o n s t o § 65, s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o w i n g the game Const., of bingo Amendments under certain circumstances. See A l a . 386, 387, 413, 440, 506, 508, 542, 549, 29 1080805 and 550, 565, bingo and 1080806 569, 599, amendments the Barrett are exception v. and infra). Further, (Emphasis exceptions should S t a t e , 705 (discussed 612." So. be to 2d 529, except where the 531 commonly understood meaning provision to we 118 A l a . 1, of 28, of look the d i s c e r n i t s meaning. The the people intention read and Court 169 of So. 13, i n the i n Houston 16 i n the i s collected interpreted noted See (Ala. Crim. App. also 1996) County v. the this So. 89, adoption of of plain used Court 92 and 232 that stated in (1897): "The constitution. the instrument, i t s history." Martin, in and e f f e c t u a t e the the the words of light constitutional terms As 24 from a to object of a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s to a s c e r t a i n intention the prohibition, construed. language otherwise, Sayre, Thus, 1 0 requires v. lottery narrowly provision State the added.) Ala. As this 511, 514, (1936): " I t i s a w e l l - s e t t l e d r u l e of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a p p l i c a b l e t o c o n s t i t u t i o n s as w e l l as statutes, that i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e i r purpose and i n t e n t t o l o o k t o t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e t i m e s , the e x i s t i n g o r d e r o f t h i n g s , t h e s t a t e o f t h e l a w when We note t h a t one of the a t t o r n e y s f o r Cornerstone a d m i t t e d d u r i n g q u e s t i o n i n g of the Task F o r c e ' s e x p e r t t h a t "bingo, even t r a d i t i o n a l bingo, i s a type of l o t t e r y . " 10 30 1080805 and 1080806 the instrument was adopted, n e c e s s i t a t i n g such adoption." and the conditions In D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a v. Heller, (2008), United Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d the States U.S. , 128 S. Ct. 2783 that " ' [ t ] h e C o n s t i t u t i o n was w r i t t e n t o be u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e v o t e r s ; i t s words and p h r a s e s were u s e d i n t h e i r n o r m a l and o r d i n a r y as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t e c h n i c a l meaning.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S p r a g u e , 282 U.S. 716, 731 ( 1 9 3 1 ) ; s e e a l s o G i b b o n s v . O g d e n , 9 W h e a t . 1, 188 ( 1 8 2 4 ) . N o r m a l m e a n i n g may o f c o u r s e i n c l u d e a n idiomatic meaning, but i t excludes secret or t e c h n i c a l m e a n i n g s t h a t w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n known t o o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s i n the founding generation." U.S. at In State ex (1962), , 128 addition to this Court much w e i g h t . " on The i s meant by " t h e Code legislature 1901, a 2788 foregoing 273 stated throw l i g h t of Const. the at Ala. that meaning of interpretation Ala. Ct. r e l . Downing, cannot change the a c t may S. (emphasis principles, in 166, 169, 137 "[a]lthough a Jansen v. 2d 49 So. 47, legislative a constitutional provision, i t s construction and, particular provision, Alabama added). Legislature as a act such legislative i t is entitled itself explained to what game c o m m o n l y k n o w n as b i n g o " when i t e n a c t e d 1975, defined § 45-8-150(1). the Amendment term No. In "bingo" 508 31 (Local that for statute, purposes Amendments, of the Ala. Calhoun 1080805 and 1080806 County, "bingo § 1, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 ( O f f . R e c o m p . ) ) , w h i c h games" i n Calhoun legalized County: "(1) Bingo. The game c o m m o n l y k n o w n a s b i n g o , w h i c h i s a game o f c h a n c e p l a y e d w i t h c a r d s p r i n t e d w i t h f i v e rows o f f i v e s q u a r e s e a c h . Participants p l a c e m a r k e r s o v e r r a n d o m l y c a l l e d n u m b e r s on t h e c a r d s i n an a t t e m p t t o f o r m a p r e s e l e c t e d p a t t e r n s u c h as a h o r i z o n t a l , v e r t i c a l , o r d i a g o n a l l i n e , o r a l l four corners. The f i r s t p a r t i c i p a n t t o f o r m t h e p r e s e l e c t e d p a t t e r n w i n s t h e game. The t e r m ' b i n g o ' means a n y game o f b i n g o o f t h e t y p e d e s c r i b e d a b o v e i n which wagers are p l a c e d , winners are determined, and p r i z e s o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y i s d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f a l l p e r s o n s p l a c i n g w a g e r s i n t h a t game. The term ' b i n g o ' does n o t r e f e r t o a n y game o f c h a n c e o t h e r t h a n t h e t y p e o f game d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s subdivision." Ala. Code 1975, § In in contrast Amendment Amendment No. 743 1901 bingo lieu t o the use of merely No. 508 -- the same the term "bingo terminology games" present in No. 674 a t i s s u e h e r e -- A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , Amendment (Local Amendments, ( O f f . Recomp.)), that would of a paper amendment to 45-8-150(1). legalizes include card. Greene i n Greene an " e l e c t r o n i c Even t h a t a game i n a l l m a t e r i a l equipment respects 32 § 1, A l a . C o n s t . County marking amendment, w h i c h i n A l a b a m a we h a v e l o c a t e d the use of e l e c t r o n i c County, a form of machine" i n i s the only t h a t makes any r e f e r e n c e o f any form, similar contemplates t o t h e game o f b i n g o 1080805 a n d 1080806 described i n § 45-8-150(1), different from issue is The here. "[t]hat the types and something of electronic i s materially gaming machines A m e n d m e n t No. 7 4 3 b e g i n s b y s a y i n g t h a t specific definition then kind o f game explains that symbols on a c a r d o r e l e c t r o n i c m a r k i n g symbols the basis bingo a r e awarded or on commonly prizes numbers that selected at known at "bingo" as b i n g o . " i s a game " i n w h i c h of designated numbers or machine conforming t o random." Moreover, the e q u i p m e n t c o n t e m p l a t e d b y A m e n d m e n t No. 7 4 3 f o r u s e i n a b i n g o game i s e n t i r e l y different than the equipment at issue Specifically, A m e n d m e n t No. 7 4 3 d e f i n e s " e q u i p m e n t " game o f b i n g o as here. for the follows: "The r e c e p t a c l e a n d n u m b e r e d o b j e c t s d r a w n f r o m i t , t h e m a s t e r b o a r d upon w h i c h s u c h o b j e c t s a r e p l a c e d as d r a w n , t h e c a r d s o r s h e e t s b e a r i n g numbers o r o t h e r d e s i g n a t i o n s t o be c o v e r e d a n d t h e o b j e c t s used to cover them or e l e c t r o n i c card marking machines, and t h e board o r s i g n s , however o p e r a t e d , used to announce or display t h e numbers or d e s i g n a t i o n s as t h e y a r e drawn." For purposes not contend cards, Riley that o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s do a "bingo a n d we, t h e r e f o r e , defendants do a r g u e , game" m u s t b e p l a y e d o n l y o n do n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e . however, here does n o t c o n t a i n o t h e r t e l l t a l e 33 i s that elements paper What t h e t h e game a t i s s u e o f b i n g o such as 1080805 and 1080806 players manually marking a card of "sleeping failing board, to a bingo" call players game, and a short, as the e i t h e r by out "bingo!" seeing game of and that some s o r t , failing once hearing lasts a R i l e y defendants put than fundamental reply brief, to the a t pp. game of that as held 1990) and by Amendment In at issue interaction Riley that defendants' the R i l e y defendants bingo" No. out does not 508 ruling constitute the Constitution of 508 in contains the same r e l e v a n t l a n g u a g e as A m e n d m e n t No. "[t]he operation ordinance, a A m e n d m e n t No. "bingo" 2d and 436. of Evans, court's a trial In So. a municipal at set discuss 642 legalizing bingo adopted "'"Instant allowed the game c o m m o n l y known as b i n g o . that Alabama.'" in Court won 6-7. what c o n s t i t u t e s the this and winning has machines bingo." S e v e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by supra, a game or seconds. six i t , the square has someone " h a v e n o n e o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f human s k i l l are possibility mark a player that longer to the (ratified of b i n g o games." Piedmont however, t h a t d e f i n e d both called "instant bingo." had traditional Instant involved " ' " [ a ] s i n g l e banded t i c k e t or c a r d each w i t h i t s face covered to conceal one o r more numbers or 34 674 bingo 1080805 and 1080806 s y m b o l s w h e r e one o r m o r e c a r d s o r t i c k e t s i n e a c h s e t has been d e s i g n a t e d i n advance as a w i n n e r . Participants at a d e s i g n a t e d time of p l a y are r e q u i r e d t o remove t h e f r o n t c o v e r of t h e B i n g o c a r d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t c a r d h o l d e r has t h e r e q u i r e d designated numbers or symbols t o be declared a winner."'" 642 So. 2 d a t 4 3 6 . in Evans that permitted The trial instant court, bingo b y A m e n d m e n t No. was 508 and t h i s not because Court, concluded the kind of bingo i t was "'a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t t y p e o f l o t t e r y f r o m t h e l o t t e r y of "bingo." I t does not even f a l l within the d e f i n i t i o n of bingo found i n M u n i c i p a l Ordinance No. 4 1 3 , w h i c h d e f i n e s b i n g o a s : "'"That specific kind of game, or e n t e r p r i s e , c o m m o n l y known a s ' b i n g o , ' i n w h i c h p r i z e s a r e a w a r d e d on t h e b a s i s o f d e s i g n a t e d numbers, or symbols, which are drawn, a t random, by t h e o p e r a t o r o f s a i d game a n d w h i c h a r e p l a c e d b y t h e p e r s o n s p l a y i n g , o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s a i d game, on c a r d s , or sheets of paper, which c o n t a i n , or s e t o u t , numbered s p a c e s , upon w h i c h s a i d d e s i g n a t e d n u m b e r s o r s y m b o l s , may be placed by the persons playing or p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s a i d game."'" 642 So. In 2d at 436-37. Barrett v. 1996), the called "U-Pick-Em" 1 1 Court State, of 1 1 705 Criminal was " U - P i c k - E m " was So. 2d Appeals 529 (Ala. Crim. concluded that a App. game " c l e a r l y n o t t h e game ' c o m m o n l y known p l a y e d i n the 35 following manner: 1080805 and 1080806 as On bingo.' statements appellant by the an himself, contrary, employee [that court] the Palace of when a s k e d b y an agree[d] and also i n v e s t i g a t o r how with the by the to play " E a c h p l a y e r p a y s one d o l l a r f o r e a c h c h a n c e t o w i n . In exchange the p l a y e r i s given a card containing t h e n u m b e r s 1 t h r o u g h 75. F o r two d o l l a r s a p l a y e r g e t s t w o c a r d s ; t h r e e d o l l a r s , t h r e e c a r d s , e t c . The p l a y e r t h e n c h o o s e s e i g h t n u m b e r s on e a c h c a r d and gives the cards over to a computer operator who feeds the numbers into a computer. In the alternative, the player can elect to let the computer a u t o m a t i c a l l y choose the e i g h t numbers p e r card. R e g a r d l e s s of which method i s s e l e c t e d , the computer p r i n t s a s l i p of paper c o n t a i n i n g the e i g h t numbers and t h a t p a p e r i s g i v e n t o t h e p l a y e r . The slip of paper contains rows of numbers which c o r r e s p o n d t o the numbers s e l e c t e d . I f the p l a y e r p a i d one d o l l a r t h e p a p e r c o n t a i n s one row o f e i g h t n u m b e r s ; two d o l l a r s r e s u l t s i n two rows o f e i g h t numbers; e t c . D e p e n d i n g on t h e n u m b e r b e t w e e n 1 a n d 75 c h o s e n , t h e n u m b e r s h a v e a l e t t e r a t t a c h e d to them. The l e t t e r i s a 'B,' ' I , ' 'N,' 'G,' or 'O,' d e p e n d i n g on w h e r e t h e n u m b e r w o u l d f a l l on a common b i n g o c a r d . A f t e r e a c h p l a y e r has t h e s l i p o f p a p e r , t h e a c t u a l p l a y i n g commences. An a n n o u n c e r calls o u t 20 n u m b e r s ; i f a n y p l a y e r m a t c h e s e a c h o f e i g h t n u m b e r s i n any g i v e n row, t h a t p l a y e r w i n s t h e g r a n d prize. I f no one m a t c h e s a l l e i g h t n u m b e r s d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 20 c a l l s , t h e a n n o u n c e r c o n t i n u e s t o c a l l numbers until the first person to match eight n u m b e r s i n one row c a l l s b i n g o . I f the winner does n o t m a t c h w i t h i n t h e f i r s t 20 n u m b e r s , t h e p r i z e i s c a l l e d a c o n s o l a t i o n p r i z e and i s v e r y s m a l l when compared to the grand p r i z e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i f no one w i n s t h e g r a n d p r i z e , t h a t p r i z e i s i n c r e a s e d and c a r r i e d f o r w a r d t o a n o t h e r n i g h t . " 705 So. 2d at 531. 36 1080805 and 1080806 the game, that lottery.'" Criminal only 705 a narrow [was] noted that "Amendment game o f b i n g o . " of Piedmont's] the Court No. clear ordinance that t h e o t h e r amendments w i t h fact the t r a d i t i o n a l Other game Otten, 121 N.M. also discuss as b i n g o . 205, licensed commonly known charitable, 1 2 above as 1 2 the ordinary the Court of bingo presumably and e f f e c t , 910 P.2d organizations 'bingo' patriotic, or by was i n 37 constitutes Bingo, 281 t h e New (1995), Bingo to "conduct 'raffles' religious, The r e f e r e n c e d o r d i n a n c e from Evans. what In C i t a t i o n S u p r e m e C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t New M e x i c o ' s permitted "no game o f b i n g o . jurisdictions c o m m o n l y known t h e same w o r d i n g that [on b i n g o ] the type p e r m i t t e d b y A m e n d m e n t No. 5 0 8 , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , policy prohibition I n so r u l i n g , ruled of 508 a l l o w s public anything other than implicitly Florida I t then reasoned 705 So. 2d a t 532. Appeals the constitution's 705 So. 2d a t 5 3 1 . be c o n s t r u e d t o i n c l u d e 'like I n so r u l i n g , and t h e Alabama i n [the City Criminal played exception to the state's of l o t t e r i e s . " of first lotteries expression game So. 2d a t 532. Appeals against can the i s t h e same L t d . v. Mexico and R a f f l e A c t games o f c h a n c e for or the educational, public-spirited as that quoted 1080805 a n d 1080806 purposes." 121 N.M. a t 2 0 7 , 910 P . 2 d a t 2 8 3 . c o n c l u d e d t h a t a game c a l l e d That Court "Power B i n g o , " w h i c h i n v o l v e d t h e use o f e l e c t r o n i c d e v i c e s t o p l a y t h e game, d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e the game " c o m m o n l y Court known as ' b i n g o . ' " I n so r u l i n g , the Otten noted: " P o w e r B i n g o d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h e r u l e s o f t h e game, but i t does change t h e method o f p l a y . When a letter a n d number are called, Power B i n g o users s i m p l y e n t e r t h e t w o - d i g i t number i n t o t h e i r d e v i c e using the keypad. For example, i f the c a l l e r announces 'B-6,' P o w e r B i n g o u s e r s simply press '06.' The u n i t t h e n c o m p a r e s t h e n u m b e r entered w i t h each o f i t s c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d numbers, p l a c i n g t h e e n t e r e d number i n memory i f t h e r e i s a m a t c h . The u n i t a l s o c o m p a r e s a n y p a t t e r n f o r m e d b y a l l numbers so stored against the pre-established w i n n i n g p a t t e r n t o see i fthere i s a match. I f there i s , the unit immediately n o t i f i e s the user. Thus Power B i n g o d i f f e r s f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l b i n g o i n t h a t p l a y e r s o f Power B i n g o c a n n o t s e e t h e c a r d s they h a v e p u r c h a s e d , n e e d n o t l o c a t e a n d mark numbers on their cards, and need n o t v i s u a l l y i d e n t i f y any winning pattern." 121 N.M. a t 206-07, contrasted 910 P . 2 d a t 2 8 2 - 8 3 . "Power B i n g o " with traditional The C o u r t bingo, as further follows: " B e f o r e t h e a d v e n t o f t h e P o w e r B i n g o u n i t , t h e game o f b i n g o was p l a y e d u s i n g o n l y p a p e r o r h a r d b o a r d cards. Each paper card c o n s i s t s of a f i v e - b y - f i v e m a t r i x c o n t a i n i n g t w e n t y - f o u r numbered spaces and a c e n t e r s p a c e m a r k e d ' f r e e . ' Numbers b e t w e e n one a n d fifteen inclusive appear i n the f i r s t column, numbers between s i x t e e n and t h i r t y a p p e a r i n t h e second column, numbers between thirty-one and forty-five appear i n the t h i r d column, numbers 38 1080805 and 1080806 between f o r t y - s i x and sixty appear i n the fourth c o l u m n , and f i n a l l y , numbers b e t w e e n s i x t y - o n e and s e v e n t y - f i v e appear i n the f i f t h column. Each column i s d e s i g n a t e d by a l e t t e r o f t h e w o r d ' b i n g o , ' the f i r s t c o l u m n d e s i g n a t e d as 'B' a n d t h e f i f t h c o l u m n as 'O.' D u r i n g t h e game, t h e c a l l e r d r a w s f r o m a b i n one p i n g p o n g b a l l e v e r y t w e l v e t o f o u r t e e n s e c o n d s and announces to the h a l l the letter and number a p p e a r i n g on t h a t b a l l . The l e t t e r i s a n n o u n c e d o n l y to a i d p l a y e r s i n f i n d i n g the c o r r e c t column. A f t e r the l e t t e r and number a r e a n n o u n c e d , e a c h player m u s t c h e c k a l l c a r d s he o r s h e i s p l a y i n g t o s e e i f there a r e any matches. I f there are, the player m a r k s e a c h m a t c h u s i n g an i n k d a u b e r . As e a c h m a r k is made, the player must determine whether i t completes a p a t t e r n t h a t matches a p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d w i n n i n g p a t t e r n . I f i t d o e s , the p l a y e r must c a l l out ' b i n g o ' b e f o r e t h e n e x t l e t t e r and number a r e announced." 121 N.M. Inc. a t 206, v. Strom, 910 268 (explaining that a who 'Caller' random from balls or a activity, a sum of a t 282. S.C. 498, announces, container 501, for the use at a S.E.2d time, has game' means 'bingo,' of game c o m m e n c e s , n u m b e r s a r e and a n n o u n c e d . The one Bank, 883 (1977) the use of drawn at by numbers been Fla. and Bingo 881, i s played purpose"); the players a l s o , e.g., 234 which that ("'Bingo for one into c o m m o n l y known as money See " [ t ] h e game o f b i n g o objects 849.0931(1)(a) P.2d placed Stat. refers numbered Ann. to the i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s pay or more b i n g o drawn by chance, cards. one by c o v e r o r m a r k t h o s e n u m b e r s on 39 § When one, the 1080805 and 1080806 b i n g o c a r d s w h i c h t h e y have p u r c h a s e d u n t i l a given order preannounced 'bingo' of numbers for that and is State ex in a player sequence that p a r t i c u l a r game. T h i s declared the winner has player of a receives been calls out predetermined prize."). In P.2d 127 (1994), r e l . Stephan the Kansas v. Parrish, Supreme 256 Court was d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r " i n s t a n t b i n g o " as p e r m i t t e d Kansas L e g i s l a t u r e c o n s t i t u t e d the Art. 15, § 3a, provides forever 15, that of the "[l]otteries prohibited." § 3a, Kansas At kind the the 746, 887 charged by an with a c t of the of bingo p e r m i t t e d Constitution. and Kan. Article 15, § by 3, s a l e of l o t t e r y t i c k e t s are time P a r r i s h was decided, Art. provided: "Notwithstanding the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 3 of article 15 of the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the state of K a n s a s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may r e g u l a t e , l i c e n s e a n d t a x the o p e r a t i o n o r c o n d u c t o f games o f 'bingo,' as d e f i n e d by law, by bona f i d e n o n p r o f i t religious, charitable, fraternal, educational and veterans organizations." 1 3 The K.S.A. Kansas 79-4701(a), legislation defined originally for Art. A r t i c l e 15, "instant bingo." 1 3 Legislature § 15, § 3a, has "bingo" enacted in as 1975 follows as in enabling 3a: since 40 been amended to include 1080805 a n d 1080806 " ' B i n g o ' means a game i n w h i c h e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t m u s t pay a charge and a p r i z e o r p r i z e s a r e awarded t o the winner or winners i n which each participant r e c e i v e s one o r more c a r d s o r i n w h i c h a c a r d o r c a r d s a r e i n c l u d e d i n a p a p e r game p r o g r a m b o o k l e t e a c h o f w h i c h i s m a r k e d o f f i n t o 25 s q u a r e s a r r a n g e d i n f i v e h o r i z o n t a l rows o f f i v e s q u a r e s each and f i v e v e r t i c a l rows o f f i v e s q u a r e s e a c h , w i t h each square being d e s i g n a t e d by number, letter or c o m b i n a t i o n o f numbers and l e t t e r s , and o n l y t h e c e n t e r square d e s i g n a t e d w i t h t h e word ' f r e e ' w i t h no two c a r d s b e i n g i d e n t i c a l , with the players covering squares as t h e o p e r a t o r o f s u c h game announces a number, l e t t e r o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f numbers and letters a p p e a r i n g on an o b j e c t s e l e c t e d by chance, either manually or m e c h a n i c a l l y from a r e c e p t a c l e i n which have been p l a c e d o b j e c t s b e a r i n g numbers, l e t t e r s o r c o m b i n a t i o n s o f numbers and letters corresponding t o the system used f o r d e s i g n a t i n g t h e squares, w i t h t h e winner o f each game b e i n g t h e p l a y e r o r p l a y e r s first properly c o v e r i n g a p r e d e t e r m i n e d and announced p a t t e r n o f s q u a r e s upon t h e c a r d o r a c a r d w h i c h i s i n c l u d e d i n a p a p e r game p r o g r a m b o o k l e t b e i n g u s e d b y s u c h player or players." In include 1993, t h e Kansas L e g i s l a t u r e within "instant bingo." the d e f i n i t i o n Specifically, of a m e n d e d K.S.A. 7 9 - 4 7 0 1 t o "bingo" what i t called " i n s t a n t b i n g o " was d e f i n e d a s "a game: (1) I n w h i c h e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t m u s t p a y a c h a r g e ; (2) i n w h i c h a p r i z e o r p r i z e s a r e a w a r d e d to the winner or winners; (3) i n w h i c h each p a r t i c i p a n t r e c e i v e s one o r more d i s p o s a b l e t i c k e t s w h i c h a c c o r d a p a r t i c i p a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o w i n something of value by opening, detaching or otherwise removing a cover from t h e t i c k e t t o r e v e a l a set of numbers, letters, symbols or configurations, o r any c o m b i n a t i o n t h e r e o f ; (4) w h i c h i s c o n d u c t e d b y a l i c e n s e e u n d e r t h i s a c t ; (5) 41 1080805 and 1080806 t h e c o n d u c t o f w h i c h m u s t be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ; a n d (6) w h i c h d o e s n o t u t i l i z e a n y d i c e , normal p l a y i n g cards or s l o t machines." K.S.A. 79-4701(c). The attorney constitutionality general of Kansas challenged the o f K.S.A. 7 9 - 4 7 0 1 , a s a m e n d e d , a r g u i n g t h a t " t h e p h r a s e 'games o f b i n g o , ' a s u s e d i n A r t . 1 5 , § 3 a , c a n n o t be d e f i n e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o i n c l u d e instant bingo. [The S t a t e ] a r g u e s t h a t a b s e n t a n amendment t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , instant bingo i s unconstitutional. I n essence, t h e S t a t e ' s argument i s t h a t i n s t a n t b i n g o i s n o t a 'game o f b i n g o ' a s v o t e r s t h o u g h t o r i n t e n d e d when a d o p t i n g A r t . 1 5 , § 3a, b u t i n s t e a d i s a n o t h e r form o f l o t t e r y , tagged as a 'game o f b i n g o ' by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , but p r o h i b i t e d u n d e r A r t . 15, § 3 o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . " Parrish, 256 K a n . a t 7 5 1 - 5 2 , The 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 1 . s e c r e t a r y o f t h e K a n s a s D e p a r t m e n t o f R e v e n u e was t h e defendant i n the action and contended that "the specific language of the constitutional amendment ... p r o v i d e s f o r 'games o f " b i n g o , " a s defined by l a w . ' She a s s e r t s that the p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f A r t . 1 5 , § 3a s p e c i f i c a l l y d e l e g a t e s t h e p o w e r t o d e f i n e 'games o f b i n g o ' t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . Furthermore, she maintains that the language r e c o g n i z e s t h a t m o r e t h a n o n e t y p e o f b i n g o game e x i s t s b y i t s u s e o f t h e p l u r a l 'games o f b i n g o . ' " 256 K a n . a t 7 5 2 , 887 similar this P.2d a t 131. The latter argument i s t o o n e o f t h e a r g u m e n t s made b y C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV i n case. 42 1080805 and 1080806 The it P a r r i s h Court began i t s d i s c u s s i o n was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e y were n o t v o t i n g much a t i t was Court then when t h e p e o p l e by o b s e r v i n g adopted A r t . 15, § 3 a , f o r "instant bingo," but rather defined i n K.S.A. that 79-4701(a). "bingo," The Parrish noted: " A l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s a p p e a l r e a d i l y c o n c e d e (1) t h a t i n s t a n t b i n g o i s a l o t t e r y u n d e r A r t . 1 5 , § 3; (2) t h a t e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n A r t . 1 5 , §§ 3 a , 3 b , a n d 3c, a l l l o t t e r i e s a r e p r o h i b i t e d ; a n d (3) t o b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , i n s t a n t b i n g o must f a l l w i t h i n t h e t e r m 'games o f ' b i n g o , ' a s d e f i n e d b y l a w ' c o n t a i n e d i n A r t . 15, § 3 a . " 1 4 256 K a n . a t 7 5 4 , 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 3 . that the so-called pull-tab by game. the case "instant The P a r r i s h C o u r t bingo" was nothing more Therefore, i t considered the issue t o be: "[W]hether bingo by the t h e game called instant similar characteristics to traditional of p u l l legislature, has observed than a presented tabs, now sufficient b i n g o , now c a l l e d call b i n g o , t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a game o f b i n g o w i t h i n A r t . 1 5 , § 3 a . " 256 K a n . a t 7 5 5 , 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 3 . This p r i n c i p l e i s quite s i m i l a r to the p r i n c i p l e bingo i n t h i s state i s a l o Town o f W h i t e H a l l b y v i r t e l e c t r o n i c gaming machines as u n d e r s t o o d b y t h a t amendment i n o r d e r t o be l e g a l . 1 4 43 that 1080805 a n d 1080806 At the outset, emphasizing Constitution tickets 755, one that the Parrish Court "the overriding i s that are forever prohibition '[l]otteries prohibited.' 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 3 . The K a n s a s of i t s previous cases, analyzed the issue i n which of the Kansas and t h e s a l e of A r t . 1 5 , § 3." Supreme by Court lottery 256 K a n . quoted from i thad observed: "'Although this constitutional provision was u n d o u b t e d l y borrowed from states previously admitted to statehood, i t is apparent that the framers of the c o n s t i t u t i o n of this state conscientiously determined that prohibiting lotteries f o r e v e r was a m e t h o d o f p r o m o t i n g a s o u n d b a s i s f o r t h e w e l f a r e and growth o f t h i s state. S i n c e i t s a d o p t i o n , many e f f o r t s h a v e b e e n made b y p e r s o n s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s to circumvent this constitutional p r o v i s i o n . Such e f f o r t s have g e n e r a l l y been made f o r p r o f i t , s e e k i n g t o e l i c i t m o n e y f r o m t h o s e who c a n n o t refrain from the i n s t i n c t i v e weakness o f humanity t o gamble. "'This c o u r t has s t e a d f a s t l y adhered to t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n by s t r i k i n g down s u c h e f f o r t s '" 256 Kan. K a n . a t 7 5 5 , 887 P . 2 d a t 133 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v . N e l s o n , 210 4 3 9 , 4 4 4 , 502 P . 2 d 8 4 1 , 845 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ) . The P a r r i s h Court noted that there are several o f t h e game o f b i n g o and s t a t e d 44 that the defendants variations attempted 1080805 a n d 1080806 to use that merely fact as e v i d e n c e referring that Art. to t r a d i t i o n a l bingo. 15, § 3 a , was n o t The C o u r t responded: "We agree with the Secretary and the Intervenor, and t h e S t a t e does n o t seriously c o n t e n d o t h e r w i s e , t h a t t h e t e r m s 'games o f b i n g o ' i n A r t . 1 5 , § 3 a may l o g i c a l l y b e c o n s t r u e d t o mean m o r e t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l game o f b i n g o f a m i l i a r t o n e a r l y e v e r y o n e and as o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d i n t h e B i n g o A c t . H o w e v e r , we t h i n k i t i s beyond fair d i s p u t e t h a t games o f b i n g o w h i c h d e p a r t f r o m t h e g e n e r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r a d i t i o n a l b i n g o must f a l l w i t h i n t h e same g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y o f games a n d h a v e t h e b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common t o a l l s u c h g a m e s . " [ 1 5 ] 256 Kan. a t 756-57, The precedent instant Parrish characteristics bingo." reject Court to guide bingo 887 P . 2 d a t 134 reasoned (emphasis that u s , we a r e l i m i t e d of " [ a ] s we have no clear t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether contains enough of bingo t o be l a w f u l l y the basic defined 2 5 6 K a n . a t 7 6 1 , 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 6 . t h e common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s added). elements or a s a game o f I t proceeded to o f t h e game p u t f o r t h b y t h e T h e i n t e r v e n o r / d e f e n d a n t w a s L o d g e No. 5 5 5 , L o y a l O r d e r o f M o o s e , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e " i n s t a n t b i n g o " was p l a y e d a t t h e lodge. 1 5 45 1080805 and intervenor, inherent The 1080806 1 6 finding i n bingo Parrish " n o n e o f t h e m t o be a t r u e or s i m i l a r Court then games." Id. explained what characteristic the major characteristics them w i t h t h e game o f " i n s t a n t b i n g o " i t believed of t r a d i t i o n a l bingo and t o be contrasted at issue: " I n r e v i e w i n g t h e numerous d e f i n i t i o n s o f b i n g o and bingo-type games submitted by industrious c o u n s e l , t h e r e a r e d e f i n i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to and inherent in bingo-type games. A l l definitions i n c l u d e the requirement of a card or p a p e r u t i l i z i n g numerous numbers w h i c h a r e t o be c o v e r e d o r m a r k e d i f a n d when one o f t h e n u m b e r s i s drawn by l o t and announced by a c a l l e r o r s e l e c t e d t h r o u g h some o t h e r s i m i l a r m e t h o d . B i n g o - t y p e games contemplate a group a c t i v i t y , often s o c i a l , with several participants. The o b j e c t o f t h e game i s t o be t h e f i r s t t o c o m p l e t e t h e p a t t e r n p r e s c r i b e d f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b i n g o - t y p e game f r o m t h e n u m b e r s called. Instant bingo u t i l i z e s a small p u l l tab c a r d w h e r e t h e a c t i v i t y may b e o n l y one on one between t h e p l a y e r and t h e s e l l e r o f t h e c a r d . As such, i t does not have t h e group participation r e q u i r e d o f b i n g o - t y p e games. " I n b i n g o , e a c h game l a s t s s e v e r a l m i n u t e s w i t h t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s h o p i n g t o be t h e f i r s t t o c o m p l e t e a w i n n i n g l i n e on t h e i r c a r d s . In i n s t a n t bingo the r e s u l t i s i n s t a n t a n e o u s w i t h t h e p u l l i n g open o f t h e tab or t a b s which w i l l r e v e a l w h e t h e r t h e p l a y e r has won o r l o s t . The b a s i c e l e m e n t s o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f games o f b i n g o , a s g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d a n d a s The intervenor's list of characteristics included: " [ B ] o t h games i n v o l v e c a r d s , t h e a m o u n t t h a t may b e w a g e r e d i s r e g u l a t e d , the types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t can p a r t i c i p a t e are s i m i l a r , t h e p r o c e e d s go t o a n o n p r o f i t e n t i t y , a n d b o t h a r e subject to taxation." 2 5 6 K a n . a t 7 6 1 , 887 P . 2 d a t 1 3 6 . 1 6 46 1080805 and 1080806 d e f i n e d by k n o w l e d g e a b l e a u t h o r i t i e s , are totally lacking i n instant bingo. In f a c t , i n s t a n t bingo has characteristics far more similar to slot machines, punchboards, and o t h e r forms of gaming r a t h e r t h a n t o b i n g o - t y p e games." 256 Kan. at Accordingly, 7 61 , 887 the Kansas P.2d at 136-37 Supreme C o u r t (emphasis added). concluded: " W h i l e we r e c o g n i z e the b r o a d power of the l e g i s l a t u r e u n d e r A r t . 1 5 , § 3 a , we are of the opinion that in defining games of bingo such d e f i n i t i o n must b e a r a r e a s o n a b l e and r e c o g n i z a b l e similarity t o t h e many d e f i n i t i o n s of bingo and o t h e r b i n g o - t y p e games f u r n i s h e d b y c o u n s e l a n d t o t h e common u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t e r m b y t h e p e o p l e of Kansas. We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e p u l l t a b games as games o f b i n g o f a i l s t h e n e c e s s a r y t e s t and t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has o v e r s t e p p e d i t s bounds w i t h the enactment of the instant bingo amendments. The definition of i n s t a n t bingo i n K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-4701(c) exceeds the power g r a n t e d t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o d e f i n e games o f b i n g o i n A r t . 15, § 3a a n d i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . " 256 Kan. a t 762, Department States Ala. v. P.2d Dorning, 137 Veterans Texas at of (CV 2009)(unreported County Racing agreeing this of 887 case Ass'n, i n dictum are said (emphasis F o r e i g n Wars #07-S-2144-NE, decision)(citing Inc., that 960 So. 2d "the e l e c t r o n i c t o p r o v i d e o n l y an 47 added). Sept. 28, Barber 599 of See the United 2009) v. also (N.D. Jefferson ( A l a . 2007), machines at issue entertaining means and in of 1080805 a n d 1080806 r e v e a l i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f a n e l e c t r o n i c b i n g o game c o n d u c t e d i n the inner workings Based "bingo" the o f a computer on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we server"). must conclude a s u s e d i n A m e n d m e n t No. 674 was i n t e n d e d game commonly characteristics or of that traditionally game i n c l u d e known as that the term to reference bingo. the following: 1. E a c h p l a y e r u s e s one o r more c a r d s with spaces arranged i n f i v e columns and f i v e rows, w i t h an a l p h a n u m e r i c o r s i m i l a r d e s i g n a t i o n a s s i g n e d t o each space. 2. randomly Alphanumeric or s i m i l a r designations drawn a n d a n n o u n c e d one b y o n e . are 3. In order t o p l a y , e a c h p l a y e r must p a y a t t e n t i o n t o t h e v a l u e s a n n o u n c e d ; i f one o f t h e values matches a value on o n e o r m o r e o f t h e p l a y e r ' s c a r d s , t h e p l a y e r must p h y s i c a l l y a c t by marking h i s or her card accordingly. to an 4. A p l a y e r c a n f a i l t o p a y p r o p e r a t t e n t i o n o r p r o p e r l y mark h i s o r h e r c a r d , and t h e r e b y m i s s o p p o r t u n i t y t o be d e c l a r e d a w i n n e r . 5. A player has a "bingo," matching values, p l a y e r s and t h e b e f o r e any o t h e r activ each with that must r e c o g n i z e t h a t h i s o r h e r c a r d i . e . , a predetermined pattern of and i n t u r n announce t o t h e o t h e r announcer that t h i s i s the case p l a y e r does s o . 6. The game o f b i n g o c o n t e m p l a t e s a g r o u p i t y i n w h i c h m u l t i p l e p l a y e r s compete a g a i n s t o t h e r t o be t h e f i r s t t o p r o p e r l y mark a c a r d t h e p r e d e t e r m i n e d w i n n i n g p a t t e r n and announce fact. 48 The 1080805 and 1080806 Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e r e v e a l s Cornerstone a n d FTV f a i l e d from which the t r i a l that Cornerstone to introduce substantial court and FTV reasonably had a could have "reasonable evidence concluded likelihood s u c c e s s " i n p r o v i n g t h a t t h e e l e c t r o n i c gaming machines from t h e EC constituted t h e game that of bingo. of seized Most of the i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e m a c h i n e s o p e r a t e was i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e T a s k F o r c e . the raid on t h e EC actually played gaming machines b e f o r e t h e r a i d . present a witness officer's exactly takes and who testimony, like slot i t seems machines. no player i n i t i a l l y player some o f f i c e r who l e d of the electronic ( C o r n e r s t o n e and FTV d i d n o t had played the machines.) the machines In fact, a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i xseconds, requires The p o l i c e interaction operate an e n t i r e involves From at a l l , almost "bingo no numbered other the game" cards, than the i n s e r t i n g cash or a " p l a y e r ' s card" w i t h cash c r e d i t s i n t o t h e machine and then p r e s s i n g a b u t t o n o r p u l l i n g a h a n d l e t o f i n d o u t t h e outcome. through a large display that A p l a y e r l e a r n s t h e outcome specifically tells w h e t h e r h e o r s h e h a s won a n d a s m a l l e r d i s p l a y bingo board and the b a l l s that 49 could have the player that been shows a drawn. A 1080805 and losing 1080806 player i s not told who, i f anyone, won the "bingo game." The failed the Riley defendants to offer electronic against or the machines are were playing linked 38 and n.20. the Riley server. The manner, playing who mere fact together, however, against one does FTV that ata l l . allowing Cornerstone's d i d not at most, for expert l i n k e d to the not demonstrate that was FTV's dispute, be of playing C o r n e r s t o n e and t h e m a c h i n e s may another; are anyone thus machines were that and the players they against defendants e l e c t r o n i c gaming Cornerstone "the undisputed evidence I t i s true multiple this know between m u l t i p l e p l a y e r s . " a t p. testified, machines they that i n d i c a t i n g that a n d FTV c o u n t e r t h a t competition brief, evidence gaming that Cornerstone that any contend that same "linked" in players i t leaves open are the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i t i s t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r them t o do so. Cornerstone and FTV rely on are l i n k e d t o t h e same s e r v e r . the server that t e l l s i n turn i s linked the f a c t The that evidence to or uses indicates that computer program the machine b e i n g p l a y e d whether the p l a y e r of that 50 a the machines 1080805 a n d 1080806 machine i s a winner o r l o s e r on t h a t o c c a s i o n . The outcome i s predetermined by t h e computer program connected t o t h e s e r v e r . There i s no individual the evidence machines indicating to the server that this means d i f f e r e n t e l e c t r o n i c machines that "linkage" of the players of are playing against one another. On t h e b a s i s Cornerstone the t r i a l had and FTV i n t r o d u c e d court likelihood we c a n n o t sufficient c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d a reasonable trial of the foregoing, conclude evidence from that which t h a t C o r n e r s t o n e and FTV of success on t h e m e r i t s . The court's order i s s u i n g a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n therefore is reversed, consistent and t h e cause with this i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings opinion. 1080805 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1080806 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Stuart, Smith, B o l i n , Parker, Cobb, C . J . , and Lyons a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . and Woodall, 51 J J . , dissent. 1080805 and 1080806 LYONS, Justice I join J u s t i c e Woodall's Cornerstone entry a n d FTV s t a t e of the preliminary threat them available 6, preliminary reason trial The "[e]vents further occurring that after the i n j u n c t i o n have g r e a t l y reduced t h e with an adequate remedy Cornerstone and FTV's i n j u n c t i o n and dismiss also point the that I note at law that a t t h e t i m e t h e i n j u n c t i o n was s o u g h t a n d Paragraph by dissent. o f f u r t h e r i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV a n d provide FTV (dissenting). appeals. to the incomplete status of the brevity and short motion to was entered." dissolve Cornerstone and of the factual notice not record of the hearing in court. R i l e y defendants opposed the motion, stating: " T h i s c a s e i s n o t moot b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e s i n i t a r e h i g h l y l i k e l y t o recur, which almost c e r t a i n l y would put t h e s e same i s s u e s o f g r e a t p u b l i c importance i n v o l v i n g t h e same p a r t i e s r i g h t b a c k b e f o r e this Court. The o n l y i n t e r e s t t h a t w o u l d be s e r v e d b y granting [ C o r n e r s t o n e and FTV's] m o t i o n i s d e l a y . The n e e d f o r a d e c i s i o n o n t h e s e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s compels t h e d e n i a l o f t h e motion." R i l e y defendants' opposition to appellees' p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and dismiss a full merits hearing has been held i n t h e main o p i n i o n appeals, on t h e i s s u e i n Charles 52 motion t o d i s s o l v e a t p . 1. However, addressed on t h e Baker e t a l . v. W a l k e r 1080805 and County 1080806 Bingo et a l . , Case e n t e r e d on O c t o b e r assume that issued w i l l consider If record. review Minor of course we Moreover, in Sheriff v. C i t y of action will this opposition This I has when no merit to subsequent as moot circuit So. us was they interest. on a full granted expedited Attorney 1080826, C a s e No. " i f an court, the Richard and S t a t e 1081015, Riley mootness also defendants' in proceedings 2d dismissed in recognized Ala. 154 bingo dismiss. relief. 259, best before C a s e No. et al., necessity of i n j u n c t i v e 258, was bingo. to the motion injunctions order injunction in their & District et a l . , of A s h v i l l e find Court an Court i n the event the issue Surles of A s h v i l l e sum, t o be the Court has r e c e n t l y with electronic In have Terry Alabama v. C i t y dealing a g a i n s t whom appeal that order to this occurs, and l o t t e r y and e n j o i n i n g such o p e r a t i o n s . the p a r t i e s such that 2007-0400, 26, 2009, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t e l e c t r o n i c c o n s t i t u t e d an i l l e g a l I No. 16, event but appeals from eliminate the See M o r r i s o n v. M u l l i n s , 18 (1963) happening after decree in pending a p p e a l , makes d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l 53 before (an a p p e a l appeal will hearing i s taken, 275 be and or unnecessary 1080805 or a n d 1080806 renders grant i tclearly effectual presented, impossible relief determination unnecessary, and instructions injunction, this ...."). appeal be t o vacate been s t a y e d court to facts here proceeding dismissed i s with the preliminary by order of this appeal. opinion the i n this should court which has h e r e t o f o r e The Under of the appeal to the t r i a l Court pending f o r the appellate 529 main U.S. 277 relies (2000), i n on C i t y which o f E r i e v. Pap's the foundation A.M., f o r the contention o f m o o t n e s s was t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s c e s s a t i o n o f business. The m a i n o p i n i o n states: "Here, n o t o n l y i s C o r n e r s t o n e ' s t i l l i n c o r p o r a t e d , ' b u t i t a l s o h a s n e v e r s t o p p e d , a n d makes no o f f e r t o s t o p , o p e r a t i n g i n t h e c h a l l e n g e d manner. Further s t i l l , t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s h a v e made n o c o m m i t m e n t to r e f r a i n from any f u r t h e r s e i z u r e o f machines from t h e [ C o r n e r s t o n e f a c i l i t y ] , a n d C o r n e r s t o n e a n d FTV h a v e made n o c o m m i t m e n t t o n o t s e e k a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t such a s e i z u r e . Perhaps most i m p o r t a n t l y , l i k e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court in Erie, '[o]ur i n t e r e s t i n preventing litigants from attempting to manipulate the Court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i n s u l a t e a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n from review further counsels against a finding of mootness here.'" So. mootness 3d a t . was the establishment, here Unlike Erie, prevailing where party's Cornerstone 54 the alleged basis f o r simply a n d FTV have closing i t s confessed the 1080805 and 1080806 availability basis Had of an f o r the t r i a l the court's assertion establishment the trial and FTV should proceedings court. As an to of the Erie adverse the f u t u r e , we the litigation the Court's simply instant not trial to to the Erie, the favorable ruling from court. would have decision on of a On the refrain merits activity of us. 55 hand, to moot municipality i n the from and trial the Riley any in ensuing Manipulation business circumstances proceeding. the the from f u r t h e r s e i z u r e s cessation the other sufficient left comes b e f o r e by Cornerstone the commitment that by i n j u n c t i o n , undoing o f b u s i n e s s as when i t p r o p e r l y comparable goes in concession of the deal with jurisdiction had Here, the absence should that still defendants t h a t they w i l l not the law prevailed cessation in at e n t r y of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . lead to vacatur acceptance of the with remedy mootness in place. ruling saddled of would have court favorable the adequate in Erie surrounding of is the 1080805 and 1080806 WOODALL, J u s t i c e In my opinion, injunction should respectfully In not (dissenting). these be dismissed from as Inc., the merits of a case. established that injunction, of Atlantis preliminary Therefore, I dissent. 642 S o . 2 d 3 9 4 , 401 hearing a moot. granting a preliminary injunction, reach well appeals 'we are the case not on Benetton ( A l a . 1994). when this a trial Court reviewing court S.p.A. v . B e n e d o t , Therefore, reviews a i t smerits.'" final EB D e v . , I n c . , 930 S o . 2 d 5 0 2 , 510 does " [ i ] t i s a preliminary judgment Invs., on L.L.C. a v. (Ala. 200 5)(quoting Howell P i p e l i n e Co. v . T e r r a R e s . , I n c . , 454 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 5 8 (Ala. 1984)). review court's order Consequently, i n this of whether the t r i a l the to conduct By Court in such a w r i t t e n motion, However, there court the trial determination i n granting i s no n e e d for this review. Cornerstone a n d FTV h a v e and d i s m i s s s o t h a t t h e p a r t i e s may p r o c e e d the t r i a l of court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n to dissolve the injunction appeals proper c a s e w o u l d be l i m i t e d t o a preliminary relief. Court a towards "this the consolidated i n an o r d e r l y a determination, 56 moved fashion b a s e d upon a full 1080805 and 1080806 evidentiary record, of the important issue of server-based bingo under Alabama l a w . " In other words, Cornerstone want the preliminary injunction d e f e n d a n t s have a p p e a l e d in that they gaming Riley simply, injunction general rule relinquishes appeal a Court a final to complain should the appeals that unnecessary the f o r the t r i a l from this general appeals. preliminary court t o do s o " T h e r e i s no d o u b t o f t h e ... d o e s , o r to which the Caldwell 85 S o . 3 0 7 , 307 of 'appellee the appeal 382, court's of the d i s s o l u t i o n an a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . " B u c h m a n , 240 A l a . 3 8 6 , 3 8 8 , 199 S o . 8 9 2 , 894 rehearing)(quoting The t o do some a c t i n r e s p e c t the right was t a k e n , ' was insist judgment. dissolve as moot. i fpending the injunction r e v e r s a l of the t r i a l -- o r r e m a n d t h e c a s e -- a n d d i s m i s s Riley and t o use t h e e l e c t r o n i c or the d i s m i s s a l of t h e i r this the a n d FTV no l o n g e r pending seek n o t be h e a r d injunction Therefore, who before to possess i n question defendants, should occupied Cornerstone have t h e r i g h t machines order, the Stated which t o be d i s s o l v e d , l e a v i n g t h e p a r t i e s t h e same p o s i t i o n s t h e y entered. from a n d FTV v. (1920)). rule Loveless, There i n this 57 case. v. (194 0 ) ( o p i n i o n on 17 A l a . App. 381, i s no r e a s o n The Willis to deviate parties' rights 1080805 and 1080806 r e m a i n t o be d e t e r m i n e d on t h e m e r i t s as I will mootness "It explain, doctrine i s true exists for a that which Gooden, 974 So. Actions § Chapman, 974 showing within 186 "'the 124, 125 majority need 989 of each 362, for of the 1A added). C.J.S. this officers.'" "However, narrowly 1226, v. authoritative ... to bring In re Adoption N.E.2d public Chapman public i s required doctrine] applying an i s construed criterion 710 to great (quoting of guiding (emphasis of future.'" criterion I d . (quoting 365, the desirability 'exception issues ( A l a . 2007) One S o . 2 d a t 989 and, 1227, of 238 [the and a a case Walgreen, I l l . Dec. ( 1 9 9 9 ) ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The d e c i s i o n r e n d e r e d b y t h e i s not a u t h o r i t a t i v e ; t h e r e f o r e , exception The in f o r the purpose i t s terms.'" I l l . 2d recur 972, exception [to the mootness involving (2005)) . public-interest] clear may 2d is determination case court, apply. an e x c e p t i o n 'moot 81 public-interest does not importance, exception the i n the t r i a l t o the mootness d o c t r i n e majority for electronic an states "that authoritative bingo the p u b l i c - i n t e r e s t i s not a p p l i c a b l e . there i s a clear determination i s legal]." So. 58 3d at as . and pressing to [whether However, the 1080805 and 1080806 main opinion unnecessary on t h e t r i a l this case trial i s i n no way court. i s likely to of great 3d . This i s so b e c a u s e t h e f a c t u a l t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t at the majority, I f that be o n l y when t h i s judgment on t h e m e r i t s Otherwise, this i t should become Court record f o r i f a n d when a final contemporary Court foil, interest.'" r e l . James, have an a p p e a l by a f u l l ignored sounding Siegelman should factual board a be final record. admonition of this (quoting state to for topics of Ass'n of Sch. Ex p a r t e (Ala. 1998)). J . , concur. 59 "legal So. from i t s own v. Alabama ( A l a . 2001) 711 S o . 2 d 9 5 2 , 962 Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , involves questions the j u d i c i a r y or a 819 S o . 2 d 5 6 8 , 576 such receives accompanied will case and i m p o r t a n c e . " the case, "'not allow a political this public interest resolved ex only the i s conducted. questions Bds., Indeed, r e v e r s a l of the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s binding According that "authoritative." State
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
