Legal Opinion
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. State of Wisconsin, Tommy G. Thompson and Donald J. Hanaway
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided December 20, 1991No. 90-3337PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The parties are interested in the operation of games both agree are lotto. They dispute, however, just what the game of lotto is and, in particular, what game Congress intended when it used the term “lotto” in § 4(7)(A)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“Act”). 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701-2721, 2703(7)(A)(i).
The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (“Oneida Tribe”) argues the term “lotto” as used in the Act means a lottery-type game akin to the game of chance conducted as Lotto — spelled with a capital “L” — by various states, including Wisconsin. The State…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Salve Regina College v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Gaming Corporation of America Golden Nickel Casinos, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership, in Re Dorsey & Whitney, a PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
- Nucor Corporation v. Aceros Y Maquilas De Occidente, S.A. De C.V.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- United States v. BDO Seidman, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- Trippe Manufacturing Company v. American Power Conversion CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Shango v. JurichCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.