Dickerson v. Deno
Alabama Supreme Court
770 So. 2d 63 (2000)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Sandra Deno, Angie Tisdale, Matthew Adams, and Jackie Fairley (plaintiffs) worked at a Waffle House restaurant with Tonda Dickerson (defendant) in Alabama. A regular customer of the restaurant, Edward Seward, occasionally traveled to Florida, where he would purchase lottery tickets. Upon Seward’s return from Florida, he would give the lottery tickets to friends and family, including the Waffle House employees, on the understanding that if any of them won, they would buy Seward a truck. In the week preceding the March 6, 1999, lottery drawing, Seward gave tickets to Deno, Tisdale, and Adams, each in a separate envelope bearing the employee’s name. None of those tickets matched the winning numbers. On March 7, 1999, a day after the drawing, Seward gave tickets to Fairley and Dickerson in the same manner. Fairley’s ticket did not match the winning numbers, but Dickerson’s did. The winning prize was $5 million. Subsequently, Deno, Tisdale, Adams, and Fairley filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court to enforce an alleged oral agreement that the five Waffle House employees would split the lottery winnings. The trial court ruled in favor of Deno, Tisdale, Adams, and Fairley, finding that there was an enforceable oral agreement that each party was entitled to 20 percent of the winnings. On appeal, Dickerson argued that the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable, in part because it was a void gambling contract under Alabama law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Maddox, J.)
Dissent (Johnstone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.