McGill Club in later years

1928

A woman named Gladys Anderson sued the McGill Club in McGill, Nevada for $5,000. It was the amount she claimed her husband had lost there playing poker.

The district court, however, dismissed her case because it lacked a cause of action (a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue and receive compensation from another party).

Ernest J. Primm, casino mogul

1956-1959

A thief absconded with $2,000 (about $17,500 today) from the Club Primadonna casino in Reno, Nevada on the first Friday of May 1956.

The missing 10,000 dimes, 2,000 quarters and 1,000 half-dollars, the reserve fund for the club’s slot machines, were taken from a wooden cabinet in the basement. Only two employees had keys to that room.

One of them, Thomas Knaub, seven months later, sued the owner of that Reno, Nevada club, Ernest J. Primm, alleging he’d made false public statements that Knaub had been involved in the robbery. Knaub, no longer in his employ, claimed Primm’s alleged slander of him had prevented him from landing a job.

Therefore, he sought $75,000 in general damages, $25,000 in punitive damages and $2,135 for lost wages — a total of $120,000 ($834,000 today).

The jury trial began three years later in June 1959. The first witness called, Primm, denied ever accusing Knaub of participating in the theft or telling other casino owners Knaub had taken part in it.

“I have never been contacted by one single establishment about Mr. Knaub,” he said. “I have never contacted any establishment about him.” Primm said he didn’t know who took the money, “and I still don’t know” (Nevada State Journal, June 16, 1959).

He added, however, he knew Knaub gambled in the local casinos. “I know one thing. A man that goes around town gambling and puts I.O.U.’s in doesn’t deserve a job,” Primm added.

The former assistant office manager, Margaret Stanley, next testified that in Knaub’s job as a Primadonna club cashier, he counted the cash every morning, made bank deposits and co-signed payroll checks. She said once he’d found and pointed out a $1,000 error in the bank deposit.

When Knaub’s attorney was about to question Stanley about a conversation she’d overhead in the past between Primm and another employee, Marjorie Standlee, the defense objected on the grounds that such conversations are confidential. The judge agreed, and Stanley’s testimony—the crux of Knaub’s case, per his attorney — was cut short.

Two days later, the judge, A.J. Maestretti, dismissed the suit because the plaintiff had failed to present a sufficient case.

Sources

Photo from Wikimedia Commons: by Greg Primm

Elliot Paul Price

1970-1973

When federal agents arrested Elliot Paul Price, 51, during a massive multi-city raid in 1970 and charged him with illegally transmitting race wire information across state lines via telephone, two dominos fell:

• He lost his job as a casino host at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

• The Clark County Sheriff’s Office pulled his work card, which is required for casino employment.

In April 1971, however, the sheriff’s department issued him a temporary permit to work in a similar position at Circus Circus. Within the week, though, the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) voted to pull it due to his being under federal indictment and allegedly having an unsavory background. On the NGC’s orders, the sheriff’s office revoked his card, leaving Price again unemployed.

Price Won’t Take No

Unable to obtain a casino job, he filed a lawsuit, but it went nowhere because, according to the judge, he hadn’t pursued all possible avenues for re-obtaining his employment permit.

Price asked the NGC and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) to reinstate it, but they didn’t. This was because, in a hearing on the issue, he refused to answer questions about his suspected association with underworld individuals. Price hailed from Boston and gambling regulators believed he was entrenched in the Mafia there.

Lawsuit, Take Two

At the start of 1972, with Oscar Goodman as his attorney, Price sued Nevada Governor Mike O’Callaghan and the NGC, claiming the latter had rescinded his work card arbitrarily. The suit purported the agency’s decision hadn’t been based on established guidelines but, rather, on unrelated “charts of the Mafia, ancient newspaper articles, dime store novels, and secret and confidential information” (Nevada State Journal, June 13, 1972). It also asserted the NGCB hearings had violated his freedom of association right and forced him to be a witness against himself.

Goodman requested the withdrawal of Price’s work card be deemed unconstitutional and a temporary restraining order (TRO) be placed against the gambling regulating agencies, preventing them from interfering with his obtaining a new one.

The state, on the other hand, argued that were the court to afford the TRO until the issue got resolved legally, it would be substituting its judgment for that of Nevada in a state administrative matter. Also, were Price to prevail, it “could well emasculate the total regulatory concept of gaming” (Reno Evening Gazette, June 13, 1972).

District Court Judge Howard Babcock granted Price the TRO.

Nevada Fights Back

The NGCB responded with a suit of its own to overturn Babcock’s action on the grounds that the local court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The NGC and NGCB conceded Price could work in a non-casino job at Las Vegas’ Riviera hotel.

District Court Judge Carl Christensen denied the State of Nevada’s motion to dissolve the TRO. This meant Price could return to his casino host post at Circus Circus until the high court weighed in.

Off To Higher Court Land

Next, Goodman took the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, asking it to allow Price to regain his work card, thereby protecting his constitutional right to due process.

Deputy Attorney General David Polley, for the state, argued that upholding Babcock’s ruling would “set a dangerous precedent which would be detrimental to the inhabitants of Nevada and their major industry” (Nevada State Journal, June 13, 1972).

Resolution Three Years Later

In 1973 the Nevada Supreme Court delivered the opinion that, yes, the lower, or district, court had jurisdiction to rule upon the validity of Price’s right to work in gaming.

In other words, Goodman and Price* won the legal fight. Their doing so established that Nevada couldn’t deprive someone of their work card without due process. Subsequently, Clark County instituted processes for suspending or revoking a work identification card and for an appeal by the card holder.

—————————–

* In 1979, Price would be indicted for multistate race fixing along with other members of Boston’s Winter Hill Gang, James “Whitey” Bulger’s associates, for which he would serve two months. Subsequently, he would disappear, never to be heard from again.

Sources

1969-1971

Patron Alvin Glasky sat in the Stardust hotel-casino’s showroom in Las Vegas, Nevada, watching Lido de Paris on a Saturday evening in 1969. As one of the topless showgirls was being lowered from the ceiling over the crowd, she fell off the platform and landed on him.

Two years later, Glasky filed a lawsuit, seeking $403,700 (about $2.5 million today) in damages for internal and external injuries caused by “a falling nude” (Desert Sun, April 1, 1971).

The outcome of the suit is unknown.

Lorenzi Lake Park c. 1931

1931

Soon after Governor Frederic “Fred” B. Balzar approved wide-open gambling for Nevada, three men applied for an initial gambling license  from the City of Las Vegas to operate a craps game at Lorenzi Lake Park in the Pavilion building.

Lorenzi, with a pool, dance area, two lakes, rowboats and concessions and an affordable entry fee, was a local hot spot for fun. Numerous events, including concerts, prize fights, horse races, dance contests and beauty pageants, took place there.

The city commissioners denied Roy Grimes, R.H. Davenport and D.J. MacCauley a gambling permit, which they believed was unjust and discriminatory. The new state gambling law began on March 19, and they’d filed their application on April 17, in proper form and meeting all the necessary requirements.

Agency’s Approach Questioned

In fact, the commissioners’ refusal to grant the three men a license was in accord with the agency’s recently adopted resolution, on March 30, that it only would afford gambling licenses in the future to entities that already had one from the previous quarter. The moratorium was to go into effect on April 5 and remain in place until the agency could develop a policy for issuing new licenses and outline a city area in which gambling houses could operate.

However, prior to moratorium decision, the commissioners had granted gambling licenses to six clubs — Boulder, Las Vegas, Exchange, Northern, Red Rooster and Meadows.

“The city commissioners arbitrarily fixed the number to be granted at six, and rejected all other applications other than the six favored ones” reported the Nevada State Journal (May 28, 1931).

Further, after the decision, the commissioners make an exception to the moratorium, which was they could grant  gambling licenses to people of the “Ethiopian race” for games at establishments “that catered to persons of the same race.”

Off To The Courts

In early May, Grimes, Davenport and McCauley filed for a writ of mandamus against the Las Vegas mayor and city commissioners, the first court action to be filed in Nevada regarding the 1931 state gambling law. They wanted the court to compel the agency to give them a gambling license. (Another mandamus action in the wake of the new gambling law was taken later in the month, in Northern Nevada.) The trio’s attorney, Charles Lee Horsey, argued that “the law prohibits discriminations and that all who conform to the same standards must be given the same privileges.”

On May 27, the case was presented to the Nevada Supreme Court, whose jurists had to determine whether or not city or county authorities have the right to limit the number of gambling licenses to be issued in a community.

Gambling Stigma Revealed

The ruling, which came two months later, in July, was the opinion of two of the three judges, Edward A. Ducker and Benjamin W. Coleman. It determined that “the city of Las Vegas exercised sound discretion in denying the application” because it was for a type of business that was “of a character regarded as tending to be injurious” (Nevada State Journal, July 9, 1931).  And when it came to this kind of enterprise, governing bodies could control which ones did and didn’t receive gambling licenses.

Contrarily, Judge John A. Sanders, the sole dissenter, opined that the commissioners indeed had acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily and that the writ should be granted.

Sources

Photo from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Libraries’ Digital Collection

Sheriff E. Russell Trathen

1931

In April 1931, the month after the new, liberal gambling law went into effect (March 19), Washoe County Sheriff E. Russell Trathen, per his job description, collected $20,000 (about $330,000 today) in gambling license fees for the month of April from operators in Northern Nevada.

Seeking Piece Of The Pie

First, Trathen went to the Washoe County Commission (WCC) and demanded 6 percent of the total in commission, which amounted to about $720 ($11,800 today). He argued he was entitled to it based on the state’s license tax act of 1915, which afforded sheriffs a 6 percent cut of the proceeds of all business licenses (and 20% of grazing licenses) sold.

The commissioners sought a legal opinion from District Attorney Melvin Jepson, who advised them that according to the law, Trathen wasn’t owed or due any compensation for the collection of license fees. The WCC told the sheriff no.

Next Course Of Action

Trathen then retained Attorney Lester D. Summerfield. In early May, the two filed for a writ of mandamus, which is an order from a superior court to a lower court, government entity, corporation or public entity to take or not take an action, as required by law. Summerfield/Trathen asked the Nevada Supreme Court to order the county treasurer to  accept the license fees Trathen had collected minus 6 percent becuase the treasurer had refused to do so the prior month, April. (Another mandamus action related to the new gambling law was taken earlier in the month in Las Vegas.)

“The case attracted wide interest through the state, as sheriffs of other counties might be able to collect a commission on gambling licenses” the Reno Evening Gazette noted (July 8, 1931).

Not Like The Others

On July 8, 1931, the higher court dismissed the writ of mandamus and issued its ruling, which was unanimous: Nevada sheriffs aren’t authorized to retain any part of the gambling license fees they collect. They said the 1931 gambling act, unlike the 1915 law, lacked a provision for such a commission.

What the new legislation did spell out was that sheriffs were responsible for unpaid fees; they were “held liable on [their] official bond for all moneys due for such licenses remaining uncollected by reason of [their] negligence,” reported the Nevada State Journal (July 9, 1931).

Sources

Photo from Police Motor Units

Reno Evening Gazette, July 15, 1931

1945-1947

Ray Wherrit and Austin K. Wright of San Luis Obispo, California set out in 1945 to build a $120,000 hotel-casino in the Crystal Bay Park subdivision on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. The two had purchased five lots there for that purpose.

In November, after hearing the details of the project, the Washoe County Commissioners approved it.

A number of property owners in the tract petitioned the commissioners to withdraw their approval. Instead, the authoritative body stood by its original decision to greenlight the resort.

The Move To Plan B

For whatever reasons, perhaps due to the protests, Wherrit, with Wright no longer as a partner, downscaled the proposed development to a casino-bar to be built on his lots that, according to the deed, could be used for such a commercial enterprise.

At the time, the town of Crystal Bay already contained some casinos, including the Ta-Neva-Ho and the Cal-Neva Lodge.

Wherrit went before the county commissioners a second time, in February 1946, for permission to proceed. Despite  major grumblings from some, construction was approved.

Again, some Crystal Bay Park residents were unhappy with the ruling, which galvanized them to abort the project.

Their efforts, including public objections to such an enterprise being built in their neighborhood, eventually succeeded in getting Wherrit to scrap his plan. At that point, he conveyed the land back to John J. Heffernan, from whom he’d purchased it.

Permanent Solution Sought

In February, about ten residents sued Heffernan and the Crystal Bay Corp. (CBC), the company that originally had subdivided the acreage. The purpose of the suit was to place development restrictions on Heffernan’s property and any unrestricted, CBC-owned land, thereby forever preventing the erection of any similar entities in the future.

The defendants fought back to keep their parcels restrictions free.

The Final Answer

After a delay of more than a year, a non-jury trial finally took place in May 1947 and lasted two days.

Judge A.J. Maestretti ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor. He determined the same limitations on development and use should apply to the entire subdivision and ordered that, accordingly, all property in Crystal Bay Park be built out only for residential purposes.

Sources

1957

After Robert Van Santen and Cecil Lynch’s business partnership in the Las Vegas, Nevada Fortune Club soured (Lynch broke off to open his own gambling club at the Golden Slot site), the two fought over use of that name for their respective casinos.

The dispute led to Van Santen suing Lynch for $100,000 in damages ($860,000 today). Eventually, Van Santen re-named his place Nevada Club but still didn’t want any downtown enterprise using the moniker Fortune Club.

When Clark County commissioners threatened to resolve the issue, though, the men came to an agreement, and Van Santen dropped the lawsuit.

1958-1959

(Part I ran last week.)

The Nevada Tax Commission withdrew the gambling license of the New Star casino’s operators — Brent Mackie and Kenneth Henton — in July 1958 after investigators allegedly witnessed 21 dealers cheating customers in eight different ways at the Winnemucca casino.

Later that month, defense attorney Thomas Foley of Las Vegas, petitioned the district court to review the tax commission’s license revocation order on the grounds that it was “capricious and arbitrary” (Reno Evening Gazette, July 29, 1958). District Judge Merwyn H. Brown ordered the agency to defend its action.

Bias Alleged

However, Brown was automatically disqualified from hearing the case. This was due to Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) member, William Sinnott, alleging via an affidavit that Brown, also of Winnemucca, possibly was biased against the tax commission as he’d ruled on the side of the Thunderbird Hotel in Las Vegas when its gambling license was in contention. 

The commission also was concerned Brown had become too close to Mackie and Henton when they’d owned the Mint Club casino in town previously.

“I’ve been booted off the case for an asinine reason,” Brown said (Reno Evening Gazette, July 30, 1958). “Frank Petersen [NGCB’s counsel] called and said he felt I was disqualified because a lady who has been my neighbor for 30 years owns a half interest in the building in which the New Star casino is located. I told Petersen that if that reason is valid, I can’t sit on any case because I have had friends here for 50 years.”

Legal Sparring Ensues

In August, District Judge John F. Sexton of Battle Mountain, Brown’s replacement, stated the license revocation was too strict, and as such, he lessened the penalty to closure of only the 21 game for 60 days and covering of the dice table for 30 days with time served taken into account. Mackie and Henton still could operate the slot machines.

Petersen, attorney for the gaming regulators, called the alteration “improper and prejudicial,” pointing out that Sexton must have determined cheating had taken place or he would’ve reversed the revocation (Nevada State Journal, Dec. 11, 1958).

“Sexton’s modification decision was another milestone in the evolution of Nevada’s thorny problem in policing the state’s multimillion-dollar legalized gambling industry,” noted the Nevada State Journal (Aug. 9, 1958).

Petersen appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. In mid-August, that court sided with the tax commission, granted its motion to stay Sexton’s order, or in other words, reinstated the license revocation and casino closure.

One Last Tack

Mackie and Henton, however, continued to fight. Foley asked the high court to dismiss the tax commission’s appeal of the district court decision that eased the revocation order and, instead, to allow a motion for re-hearing of the testimony in the lower court.

That effort, too, was unsuccessful as the Nevada Supreme Court in September said it, not the district courts, was the final arbiter on appeals concerning state gambling regulation orders.

Foley again appealed to the higher court, the second time asking the revocation be overturned because evidence had been lacking and insufficient for the penalty to be imposed initially.

In court in December, the justices asked Petersen how the tax commission could function in a judicial capacity when there was a dispute over which witness to believe and the commission itself had not observed the witnesses. (Before 1955, the tax commission directly heard all hearing testimony but that duty was transferred to the NGCB when the legislature created the entity that year).

Petersen replied that the commission has the record of the gaming board hearing and determines the weight and credibility to be accorded to the various accounts.

Out Of Gas

In January 1959, the Nevada Supreme Court found that Sexton’s order to reduce the penalty was administrative rather than judicial. It also determined a reasonable cause for the revocation had existed. The final ruling was that Mackie and Henton’s gambling license for New Star would remain cancelled for the requisite year, and it was.

Gambling At New Star Revived

That didn’t mean a different party couldn’t obtain a license and run the gambling at New Star. In fact, that’s what happened.

In February, the tax commission granted a gambling license to Sumner and Doris Kirkby to operate 20 slot machines at the club. The next month, it approved Roland I. Benum of Las Vegas to run blackjack and dice games there, too, with a $25 table limit, a restriction that in July was removed.

In December 1960, Harold Larraguetta invested $40,729 in and assumed control of the entire casino operation, which he ran for four years.

Sources

Photo from freeimages.com: by Steve Roberts

1975

In the spring, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, a Las Vegas oddsmaker and bookie, punched, knocked down and kicked casino magnate, Nathan Jacobson, in a Caesars Palace hallway in a confrontation over a debt he claimed Jacobson owed him, so alleged Jacobson in his battery lawsuit against Snyder.

A witness told police they saw Snyder hit Jacobson’s jaw with a right hook, felling him. Jacobson had been part owner and president of the hotel-casino in the mid-1960s; Snyder had done public relations for the property then. The disputed debt was for a business deal — perhaps past gambling monies or wages owed.

The week after filing his suit, the 125-pound, 60-year-old Jacobson publicly challenged Snyder, 58, who weighed 185 pounds, to a boxing match, proposing the event’s proceeds go to charity.

Snyder’s response? “I’ll have no comment concerning anything as asinine as him or that.”

Two years later, after Snyder began his stint on the CBS Sunday morning show, “The NFL Today,” predicting the results of each week’s upcoming football games, a hearing concerning the charges took place in Sin City. Jacobson, however, at the time lobbying for a new $60 million hotel-casino in Spain, didn’t show.

The judge dismissed the misdemeanor charges against Snyder.

Sources