DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, APPELLANT,
v.
WINSHARE CLUB OF CANADA, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that section 849.09, Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutional as a violation of the commerce clause.
[1] A state statute prohibiting the advertisement and promotion of foreign lottery tickets is not unconstitutional as a violation of the commerce clause.
[2] A state's interest in keeping lottery betting revenue within the state and preventing unregulated gambling activities can justify statutes prohibiting the promotion of fo…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees advertised and promoted the sale of foreign lottery tickets to Florida consumers for a fee. The State of Florida sought an injunction agains…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Gambling Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order declaring section 849.09, Florida Statutes (1985), unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
Appellees advertise and promote the sale of foreign states’ and foreign nations’ lottery tickets. The State of Florida sought an injunction against appellees to prohibit their marketing of the lottery tickets. The complaint alleged that appellees directly solicited Florida consumers through the mail and offered, for a fee, to assist these Florida recipients in purchasing lottery tickets or “shares” in those tickets. Appellees, it is alleged, would also assist in the disbursement of any winnings.
Appellant is the Office of the Attorney General, and, as such, is the proper authority to seek enforcement of the state laws. In its suit appellant alleges a violation of gambling laws and laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices. §§ 849.09(1) and 501.204(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
We agree with the well-presented arguments of the assistant attorney general and conclude that section 849.09 is not unconstitutional. We agree that the commerce clause is not unconstitutionally affected by the two criminal statutes allegedly involved here.
Because this state now has a lottery, established after the enactment of the earlier-mentioned criminal statutes, and because of the ever-growing establishment of government-operated gambling enterprises, we suggest that cases such as this will become more necessary as this state seeks to enjoin promotion of other governments’ lotteries in our state. This will be done to keep the lottery-bettors’ money in-state, and to prevent unregulated gambling activities. So we have determined that the question resolved here, the constitutionali ty of the statutes, is of great public importance; we so certify. Appellees can seek discretionary review by our supreme court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i) and (v).
ORDER REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winshare Club OF Canada v. Dep't OF Legal Affairs, 542 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1989)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Department of Legal Affairs v. Winshare Club of Canada, 530 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), which found section 849.09, Florida Statutes (1985), to be constitutional and certified a question of great public importance. We phrase the question as follows: DOES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE[1] PROHIBIT FLORIDA FROM INTERFERING WIT…
-
Support Working Animals, Inc. v. Governor of Florida, 8 F.4th 1198 (11th Cir. 2021)…General is charged with imposing them. See S.B. 8A, 2021A Leg. at 11–12 (Fla. 2021). And the criminal penalties—which the Attorney General might have implicit authority to enforce under Florida law, see Dep't of Legal Affs. v. Winshare Club of Can., 530 So. 2d 348, 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (noting in a gambling-enforcement action that “the Office of the Attorney General . . . is the proper authority to seek enforcement of the state laws”), approved, 542 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1989); see also County of Volusia…