Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. Stewart

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 9, 2001No. 25335Published

1Dissent

Justice BURNETT:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion respondent is not subject to criminal prosecution under any existing state statute. Respondent admits it possesses slot machines, blackjack tables, roulette tables, craps tables, and poker tables for use on “day cruises” or “cruises to nowhere.” Possession of these items within the territorial waters of the State of South Carolina subjects respondent to the criminal laws of this state.

South Carolina Code Ann. § 16-19-40 (Supp.2000) provides: [i]f any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Whitner v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  2. State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game MacHinesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  3. Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  4. Casino Ventures v. Robert M. Stewart, in His Official Capacity as Chief of the State Law Enforcement Division Charles M. Condon, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
  5. Casino Ventures v. StewartDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API