Legal Opinion
Trinkle v. California State Lottery
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 4, 2003No. C038754PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Plaintiff John Trinkle appeals from the judgment entered following the granting of defendant California State Lottery’s (CSL) motion for summary judgment and denying Trinkle’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
In his complaint and cross-motion for summary adjudication, Trinkle sought declaratory relief 1 to determine whether the CSL’s use of electronic vending machines to dispense SCRATCHERS lottery tickets is an illegal use of slot machines. The Superior Court found the SCRATCHERS vending machines (SVM) are not illegal slot machines.
On appeal, Trinkle challenges…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Reno v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Atchley v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- California Gasoline Retailers v. Regal Petroleum Corp. of Fresno, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Regents of University of California v. SheilyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People Ex Rel. Green v. GrewalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Marriage G.C. v. R.W., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. MedinaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.