Oliver

Oliver v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 821·66 Cal. App. 4th 1397·78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641·98 Daily Journal DAR 10465·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7566
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1998B113027California4,039 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Plaintiff Vincent Oliver (plaintiff) and plaintiffs in intervention Helix Information Services, Inc., and Michael Hesse (Helix and Hesse, respectively, or interveners) appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant County of Los Angeles (the County). In deciding the various motions for summary judgment filed by the parties, the trial court determined that a card game called “Newjack,” which was invented by plaintiff, is a form of another card game called “21.1" Penal Code section 330 prohibits the playing of 21 for Plaintiff and the interveners had filed complaints seeking declaratory and injunctive relief which would permit them to market, to gambling businesses, the Newjack game. The trial court denied such relief and ruled Newjack cannot be played legally as a wagering game.

“[Newjack] is not one of the games specifically mentioned in section 330. The question of its legality or illegality thus depends upon whether it qualifies as either a banking or a percentage game. This is an issue of law. [Citations.]” (Sullivan v. Fox (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 673, 678 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 5 ].)

We find the trial court was correct when it concluded Newjack is prohibited by…

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.