Sullivan

Sullivan v. Fox

Good Law
189 Cal. App. 3d 673·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1398·235 Cal. Rptr. 5
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1987Docket Nos. A033205, A033761California4,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

—The issue presented on these consolidated appeals is whether law enforcement officials were properly enjoined from preventing the game of pai gow being played at commercial gaming establishments.

Plaintiffs operate licensed gaming clubs in the cities of San Mateo and San Bruno. As of the spring of 1985, the playing of pai gow had either already commenced or was anticipated to begin shortly. In conjunction with these developments, plaintiffs attempted to obtain assurances from local police departments and the District Attorney of San Mateo County that the playing of pai gow would not expose them to criminal liability. These efforts were effectively terminated by a letter circulated to law enforcement agencies throughout the state in April by the Attorney General. In this letter the Attorney General stated his conclusion that when pai gow was played as either a “banking or percentage game” it was prohibited by Penal Code section 330.

Action No. 299638 was initiated in August when plaintiff Sullivan filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. In addition to recounting the above events, plaintiff alleged that the playing of pai gow had already been judicially…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.