Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corporation
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
448 F. Supp. 116 (1978)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
On June 29, 1975, Kenneth Uston (plaintiff) sought to play blackjack at the Flamingo Hilton Hotel casino, owned by Hilton Hotels Corporation (Hilton) (defendant), when two security guards approached him and requested that he leave the premises. The guards escorted Uston to the hotel entrance and recited the trespass statute to him, after which Uston left. Uston alleged that he was excluded from the premises because of his skill in blackjack. Uston filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Hilton pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Hilton violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process and equal-protection rights under color of state law. Hilton moved for summary judgment on the basis that Hilton’s actions constituted private conduct that was not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there was no significant state involvement. In response, Uston argued that Hilton’s actions met the state-action requirement by virtue of Nevada’s comprehensive regulation of casino gambling and because Nevada failed to prohibit the exclusion of card counters from casinos. For the latter argument, Uston relied on the fact that Nevada maintained a list of persons who must be excluded from gambling establishments for various reasons, and none of those reasons related to card counting, and Uston was not on the list.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Foley, C.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.