Campione v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.
New Jersey Supreme Court
714 A.2d 299 (1998)
Anthony Campione (plaintiff) was a professional blackjack player who increased his odds of winning by counting cards. Campione’s strategy was to estimate when the remaining cards were more likely to be cards of a higher value, at which time he would increase his bets, play more than one hand, or both. TropWorld Casino, operated by Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. (Adamar) (defendant), became aware that Campione counted cards and subsequently enacted countermeasures against him. The countermeasures included lowering his betting limit and preventing him from playing more than one hand, even though such limits, in practice, did not apply to all other players. Regulations promulgated by the Casino Control Commission (the commission) authorized such countermeasures, but the regulations did not address whether the countermeasures could be applied only against certain players but not others. During two incidents occurring in April and November 1989, Campione allegedly tried to place bets in excess of the limits imposed on him, but the bets were refused, even though other players at the same table were not so limited. Additionally, the November incident escalated, resulting in Campione being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and defiant trespass. Campione was acquitted of both charges. Following his acquittal, Campione filed an action in New Jersey trial court seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging malicious prosecution, denial of equal access, discrimination, and breach of implied contract. A jury rendered a verdict in Campione’s favor, awarding him a total of $1,519,873.43. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the common-law discrimination and contract claims, and that there were incorrect jury instructions on the malicious-prosecution claim. All parties appealed. Among other arguments on appeal, Adamar argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Campione’s common-law causes of action.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Pollock, J.)
What to do next…
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 707,000 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
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 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.