Kraft v. Jacka

872 F.2d 862 (1989)

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

Kraft v. Jacka

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
872 F.2d 862 (1989)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

In 1984 Sydell Kraft, the Levin International Corporation (LIC), Trans Atlantic Games, Inc. (TAG), and Trans Atlantic Games of Nevada (TAG-Nevada) (collectively, the applicants) (plaintiffs) applied with the Nevada Gaming Commission (the commission) for licenses to manufacture, distribute, and operate gaming devices in the state of Nevada. The Nevada Gaming Control Board (the board) (defendant), the government agency that made recommendations to the commission, was concerned that the applicants had engaged in improper business practices in the past and that Howard Levin, Kraft’s boyfriend and the then-president of LIC, TAG, and TAG-Nevada, was associating with a convicted felon. Accordingly, the board recommended the issuance of a one-year limited license. The commission voted in accordance with the board’s recommendations, issuing a one-year license that would expire at the commission’s meeting in February 1986. Prior to that meeting, the applicants filed for a permanent license. Again, the board voiced numerous concerns related to Levin, including his gambling debts and his possible avoidance those debts. The board allowed the applicants to withdraw the applications of LIC and TAG, and it granted a continuance to allow Levin to transfer all interests in LIC and TAG to Kraft and TAG-Nevada, such that the only applications would relate to Kraft and TAG-Nevada, and Levin would nominally be unrelated to the applications. Despite the rearrangement, the board recommended denial of the applications. In denying the applications, the board stated that one reason was that Kraft proposed to continue her business association with TAG, LIC, and Levin, all of whom were found to be unsuitable. The applicants appealed, arguing that the board violated their right to free association under the First Amendment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Choy, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 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 815,000 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