AmVets Post No. 2 v. Delaware Board of Charitable Gaming

2017 WL 4403333 (2017)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

AmVets Post No. 2 v. Delaware Board of Charitable Gaming

Delaware Superior Court
2017 WL 4403333 (2017)

Facts

Under regulations adopted by the Delaware Board of Charitable Gaming (the board) (plaintiff), no tickets for a charitable raffle with a prize of over $5,000 could be sold before the organization obtained a raffle permit. The gaming regulations also required the net proceeds of a charitable raffle to be used for the charitable purpose specified in the organization’s permit application and required organizations to comply with record-keeping rules and ticket-issuance standards, among other things. In July 2015, AmVets Post No. 2 (AmVets) (defendant) submitted a raffle-permit application to the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation (DPR). The application indicated a charitable purpose for the raffle proceeds and listed the maximum value of prizes for each raffle drawing. The application did not indicate that the raffle was a progressive jackpot, in which money carried over from one raffle to another. The board approved AmVets’ application and issued permits for AmVets to hold weekly raffles from August 1 through October 31, 2015. On October 10, 2015, DPR became aware that AmVets had been running a progressive raffle for over six months and that the jackpot was roughly $140,000—even though AmVets’ permit application had listed the total value of prizes to be awarded at the October 10 raffle as $600. DPR inspectors also realized that AmVets’ official raffle reports were inaccurate and that the raffle tickets being sold by AmVets did not contain certain required information. AmVets had also failed to keep required records regarding past ticket sales, winners, and charitable contributions. DPR further learned that AmVets’ raffle proceeds were not being donated to charity and were instead being rolled over into the progressive jackpot. The State of Delaware (the state) (plaintiff) filed a board complaint against AmVets based on the raffle activities. A DPR hearing officer found that AmVets had not maliciously deceived DPR with respect to the raffle but that AmVets nevertheless had not been completely truthful about how its raffle would be played. The officer further found that AmVets’ raffle had exceeded the $5,000 prize threshold for permitless raffles by July 2015, yet AmVets had sold raffle tickets after that date without a valid permit. The officer recommended fining AmVets $19,000 for holding raffles without a valid permit, failing to follow proper ticketing procedures, and failing to maintain adequate raffle records and file accurate reports. The board approved the recommended penalties, and AmVets appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Graves, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership