Pigeons’ Roost, Inc. v. Commonwealth
Kentucky Court of Appeals
10 S.W.3d 133 (1999)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Pigeons’ Roost, Inc. (defendant) was a nonprofit corporation in the State of Kentucky that was issued a charitable-gaming license in 1994. From April 1, 1996, through May 1, 1997, Pigeons’ Roost operated bingo and sold pull-tab games. After a standard review of Pigeons’ Roost’s operations for the third and fourth quarters of 1996, the State of Kentucky Justice Cabinet’s Division of Charitable Gaming (the division) (plaintiff) revoked Pigeons’ Roost’s charitable-gaming license on the basis that Pigeons’ Roost violated the 40 percent rule under Kentucky Revised Statutes 238.550(4), which required that charitable gaming licensees retain at least 40 percent of adjusted gross receipts for a rolling two-quarter period. Contrary to the 40 percent rule, Pigeons’ Roost did not retain any receipts during this period of time. Pigeons’ Roost appealed the division’s decision to the trial court, and the trial court upheld the revocation. On appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Pigeons’ Roost argued that the 40 percent rule violated its rights to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 2 of the Kentucky constitution. Specifically, Pigeons’ Roost contended that the 40 percent rule was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Combs, J.)
What to do next…
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.