Hometown Plaza, LLC v. Illinois Gaming Board
Illinois Appellate Court
2017 WL 3707249 (2017)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Hometown Plaza, LLC (Hometown) (plaintiff) owned an Illinois shopping center. After the Illinois legislature enacted the Video Gaming Act, legalizing the use of video-gaming terminals for commercial gambling, Hometown decided to convert part of the shopping center into an entertainment center that offered video-gaming terminals. Bella’s Hometown, LLC and Gigi’s Hometown, LLC (plaintiffs) agreed to be tenants in Hometown’s entertainment center and applied to the Illinois Gaming Board (the board) (defendant) for licenses to operate video-gaming terminals in their establishments. At the time, Hometown’s entertainment center already had three other licensed video-gaming establishments. The board thoroughly investigated Bella’s and Gigi’s and received input from the community on the applications. Opponents of the licenses argued that the Illinois legislature had not intended to legalize video-gaming malls (i.e., several connected establishments with gaming terminals). However, the mayor and other supporters of the licenses noted the positive impact the video-gaming establishments would have on revenue and job-creation. The board ultimately denied the license applications, noting that Hometown’s shopping center could house up to eight video-gaming establishments. Because Hometown already had three licensed establishments, allowing the remaining tenants to obtain licenses would mean that Hometown could have up to 55 video-gaming terminals. According to the board, that would be equivalent to a mini-casino without any traditional casino safeguards (e.g., security personnel). The board noted that video-gaming malls had negatively impacted communities in other areas and expressed a desire to protect the security and integrity of video-gaming in Illinois. Hometown, Bella’s, and Gigi’s sued the board, seeking a declaration that the license denials were improper. The trial court reversed the board’s decisions, finding that the act did not allow the board to regulate the density of video-gaming establishments in a given area. The board appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
