NRS 463.0129(e)

So someone go ahead and explain to me how Nevada casinos can back you off or even flat you when this statute clearly lays out they cannot.

NRS 463.0129 (e) To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.

Unless someone can elaborate to me the ending of the statute where it states "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE", of what is exactly provided by the legislature in detail as the EXCEPTION, i just dont understand how casinos can get away with backing you off or flat betting you. So far i've been flat bet once in vegas at some sweaty shop off strip, and im sure thats how all casinos do it here, but wouldnt being flat bet be a FORM OF RESTRICTION TO GAMING ACTIVITIES? Look at the key word in the statute, "May not be restricted in ANY MANNER" Surely ANY MANNER includes being 'flat bet'

Also wouldn't this statute prevent anyone from being 86'd at blackjack? How are they getting away with that?

It's a whole hell of a lot longer than the (e) that you quoted.

Are you really introducing facts into this rant?

Keep reading. NRS 463.0129(3)(a) says: (by the way, what you quoted is (1)(e), not (e)), says:

3.  This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Keep reading. NRS 463.0129(3)(a) says: (by the way, what you quoted is (1)(e), not (e)), says:

3.  This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason

Thanks Don! If this guy spent 10% of the time he wastes thinking everyone is trying to f!!/ him, learning new skills he might have a chance.

But like Frank, ZK did it his way.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Keep reading. NRS 463.0129(3)(a) says: (by the way, what you quoted is (1)(e), not (e)), says:

3.  This section does not:
(a) Abrogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason

Typical legalese. Its hilarious how law is written. What's even the point of having NRS 463.0129(1)(e) if youre just going to then add in something a casino can exclude you for anything? Just laughable and its funny how they always leave the key wording all the way at the bottom of a section. Reminds me of when i complained to gaming that casinos must show the cards, but it turns out ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM, it says if casinos use a regulated ASM machine, they are not required to show the cards. Just hilarious.

Also if they're going to use the common law argument, what happened to the common law of the average person? Do we not have any rights? Also how can a casino use the common law when it comes to excluding someone, but bypass the common law argument when it comes to taking your picture and distributing it all over town without your consent, not to mention stealing info off your identification and broadcasting it as well? Oh, i get it now, the common law only works when its in their best interest. Glad i live in a nice corrupt country. The rest of the world isnt much better either.

I brought this up a few years ago because Aria has/had signs posted of exactly the same thing in the OP. I have to say that one contradicts the other and should be rewritten.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I brought this up a few years ago because Aria has/had signs posted of exactly the same thing in the OP. I have to say that one contradicts the other and should be rewritten.

So wouldn't the law be void for vagueness and therefore void as if it was never written?

Quote: ZenKinG

So wouldn't the law be void for vagueness and therefore void as if it was never written?

That's something for the lawmakers and courts in Nevada to decide.

Why try to fight city hall? Pick your battles has kinda been a way of life for me for a very long time. Your supposed to be an advantage player. There are so many other opportunities for easy money in the Casino I don't get why you want to fight this stacked deck. I believe you could beat the cheating Casinos but you aren't going to beat the State or Feds. Don't get me wrong... some sharpies have crushed the system but it seems they pay a heavy price later. Your supposed to be invisible being this AP but it seems like you enjoy attention and maybe even unwanted or undesirable attention??

Quote: ZenKinG

Also if they're going to use the common law argument, what happened to the common law of the average person? Do we not have any rights?

Do you know what the term "common law" as used in this context means?

It means non-statutory law, i.e. law developed by judges in court cases, not laws enacted by legislatures.

Quote: MrV

Do you know what the term "common law" as used in this context means?

It means non-statutory law, i.e. law developed by judges in court cases, not laws enacted by legislatures.

Sorry, but judges dont make or create laws unless it's the supreme court. Common law is also not created by judges whether its a lower court or supreme court. Common law is the law of nature and is exactly what the word means, common sense laws created by no one other than god. Also case law from lower courts, what many dont understand, is that in a lower circuit court the 'case law' that results after the verdict only applies to that particular case at hand and is not a widespread decision that affects everyone, but that wont stop these attorneys and lawyers trying to quote case law from lower courts that actually has no legal effect. The only case law that applies to everyone and can be used for a clients case or if youre representing yourself, is supreme court cases

I think we have us a Sovereign Citizen here.
What kills me is that with several Brazillion youtube videos of people videos of morons making fools of themselves, someone still thinks this is a good idea.

Quote: billryan

I think we have us a Sovereign Citizen here.
What kills me is that with several Brazillion youtube videos of people videos of morons making fools of themselves, someone still thinks this is a good idea.

No, im defintely not a soveriegn citizen. Someone brought up common law and i just stated what it actually is, im not trying to be one of those idiot sovereigns. Those guys are ridiculously flawed in their assertions and take case law out of context to make their point to sell you something on their website and to get you to blindly follow them. Their followers then spread information innocently because theyre not educated enough to know the difference and never actually read the full case law and only read the 1 or 2 sentences that was picked out by the guy promoting the view point at hand and then confirmation bias begins and misleading facts.

Please dont associate me with no sovereign citizen. I know you see the word 'common law' and like to jump to conclusions but actually read what i said in regards to the point i was making. Im not saying common law is over and above all statutes and laws like those misinformed sovereigns and that only God can rule them. I simply stated in reply to Mr. V that lower circuit court judges do not make or create any laws, thats reserved for the Supreme Court(state or federal level) as well as the state legislature after being voted on upon the Senate and the House

The way I see it, any kind of common law is usually to the advantage of common people, which is why it has been under attack.

Quote: ZenKinG

Typical legalese. Its hilarious how law is written. What's even the point of having NRS 463.0129(1)(e) if youre just going to then add in something a casino can exclude you for anything? Just laughable and its funny how they always leave the key wording all the way at the bottom of a section. Reminds me of when i complained to gaming that casinos must show the cards, but it turns out ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM, it says if casinos use a regulated ASM machine, they are not required to show the cards. Just hilarious.

My guess is, section 3 was written after the fact as an amendment, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or more casinos asked for this when they realized that someone could claim the original text as a defense of card counting. Apparently, it's a lot easier than actually modifying the original text. You will find quite a lot of this in, say, the United States Code.

The original wording is the law that prevents establishing laws to exclude people for discriminatory reasons (age, sex, weight, sexual / gender orientation, race, ethnicity) and it is clearly worded.

Section 3 allows casinos to trespass you for any reason that does not violate the constitution which is common law. That includes advantage players, people who are making a disturbance, felons, and people breaking the casino's rules (dress code, carrying a gun, acting unruly, extreme drunkenness, etc). Casinos are private property.

It is legal to count cards. It is also legal for a casino to back you off for counting cards. It is illegal for the casino to keep your winnings from counting cards which has been established by the Nevada Supreme court. If you are cheating via other means (collusion, fraud) they can keep your winnings and charge you with a crime. Generally, this means that you can cheat freely if collusion is not involved but the casino can back you off if they find you cheating (or for any reason that isn't discriminatory).

An article states that there are probably only 100 or so people in the world who can hurt the casino through counting and that they have devoted a large amount of resources to defeat card counters. The article goes on that most counters have moved on to other kinds of cheating that are more lucrative.

NRS 651.070 backs up the rights of individuals to enjoy the casino:

Quote: NRS 651.070

All persons entitled to equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation.  All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression.

But here is some case law to help you: Slade vs Caesars May, 2016

This case decided 3-2.

Quote: ruling, Footnote

2. Nevada's legislative history regarding NRS 463.0129(3) is sparse, with no discussion about how the Legislature viewed the common law or why it used the term “any common-law right” in subsection 3. It does appear that one reason the language was added to the statute in 1991 was to ensure that gaming establishments in Nevada maintained the right to evict card counters. See Hearing on S.B. 532 Before the Senate Comm. on Judiciary, 66th Leg. (Nev., June 28, 1991) (remarks by Senator Bill O'Donnell questioning whether “section 3b of the [statute's] amendment meant the management of a casino could ask a patron to leave if the management suspected card counting”); Hearing on S.B. 532 Before the Senate Comm. on Judiciary, 66th Leg. (Nev., June 29, 1991) (explaining that the amendment would allow gaming establishments to “evict cheaters”).

The case in question was this doctor who was evicted from a Mississippi casino owned by CZR (and all CZR properties) was barred from entering a conference at the Paris years later.

The case itself is a fascinating read into the State of Nevada's attitude towards the gaming industry. I include some juicy tidbits.

Quote: Case note

In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether common-law principles referenced in NRS 463.0129(3)(a) permit gaming establishments to exclude from their premises any person for any reason. We generally adopt the majority common-law rule permitting the exclusion of persons for any reason that is not discriminatory or otherwise unlawful...

Respondent Caesars Entertainment Corporation owns and operates a number of casinos throughout the United States, including Harrah's Tunica Hotel and Casino in Tunica, Mississippi. In 2011, appellant Dr. Joel Slade received a letter from a representative of Harrah's Tunica notifying him that he had been evicted from that casino and that the eviction would be enforced at all Caesars-owned, -operated, or -managed properties. Dr. Slade was interested in attending a medical conference that was to take place at Paris Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, a property owned and operated by Caesars. Dr. Slade contacted Caesars' corporate headquarters in Nevada about attending the conference but was informed that his eviction from Caesars' properties would be enforced at Paris LV.

Dr. Slade alleged that under the common law and NRS 463.0129(1)(e), Caesars could not exclude him without cause.1 He further argued that the casino owed him a duty of reasonable access either as a purveyor of a public amusement or as an innkeeper. Caesars then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5), arguing that it has the right to exclude Dr. Slade pursuant to NRS 463.0129(3)(a) and the common law. The district court granted Caesars' motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

NRS 463.0129 declares Nevada's public policy concerning gaming establishments. Pursuant to NRS 463.0129(1)(e), “all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner except as provided by the Legislature.” However, the statute also provides that “[t]his section does not ․ [a]brogate or abridge any common-law right of a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.” NRS 463.0129(3)(a).2 “ ‘Gaming’ ․ means to deal, operate, carry on, conduct, maintain or expose for play any game ․ or to operate an inter-casino linked system.” NRS 463.0153. “ ‘Establishment’ means any premises wherein or whereon any gaming is done.” NRS 463.0148.

...In making his argument, Dr. Slade urges this court to read NRS 463.0129(1)(e) as requiring Caesars to provide him access to its Nevada establishments because he is a member of the general public. Caesars counters that NRS 463.0129(3)(a) preserves the common-law right to exclude any individual for any otherwise lawful, nondiscriminatory reason. The parties' arguments suggest that NRS 463.0129 presents competing rights to the general public and gaming establishments concerning access to a casino's premises. Therefore, we must first interpret the language in these statutory subsections and determine the common-law rule before reaching the merits of this appeal.

Construction of NRS 463.0129
The plain language of NRS 463.0129(1)(e) assures access to the general public to a gaming premises, except as provided by the Legislature. But the Legislature appears to have qualified that access by recognizing a common-law right of gaming establishments in NRS 463.0129(3)(a) to eject any person from the premises. In harmonizing NRS 463.0129(1)(e) and 3(a), we must determine the breadth of an owner's common-law right to evict patrons.

There is overwhelming authority recognizing the common-law right of a private owner of a public amusement to exclude any person for any reason from the premises. See, e.g., Brooks v. Chicago Downs Ass'n, Inc., 791 F.2d 512, 513, 516 (7th Cir.1986) (“find[ing] that Illinois follows the common law rule” in determining that a race track operator had the absolute right to exclude a patron for any reason); Ziskis v. Kowalski, 726 F.Supp. 902, 908 (D.Conn.1989) (“The weight of the case law upholds the common law rule that owners of places of amusement, like theaters and racetracks, are permitted to exclude patrons without cause.”); Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, L.P., 934 N.E.2d 1111, 1112, 1115–16 (Ind.2010) (following the majority rule in holding that the owner of a riverboat casino had a common-law right to exclude any person from its premises).4

A narrower interpretation of the common-law rule to exclude persons stems from the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc., 445 A.2d 370 (N.J.1982). In Uston, a casino banned a card counter from its premises based on his method of playing blackjack. Id. at 371. The court held that the exclusion was invalid because the controlling gaming authority “alone has the authority to exclude patrons based upon their strategies for playing licensed casino games.” Id. at 372. The court went on to conclude that the common-law right to exclude in New Jersey was “substantially limited by a competing common law right of reasonable access to public places.” Id.

We decline to follow the more narrow position that a common-law right of reasonable access to public places limits a private owner's right to exclude because its restrictive articulation of the common law is inconsistent with the plain language of NRS 463.0129(3)(a). Thus, in harmonizing NRS 463.0129(1)(e) and NRS 463.0129(3)(a), we conclude that casino establishments are to be open to the general public but have the common-law right to exclude any individual from the premises pursuant to the majority common-law position.

...Accordingly, we conclude that while gaming establishments generally have the right to exclude any person, the reason for exclusion must not be discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. We now turn our attention to whether Dr. Slade's exclusion was for an unlawful reason.

Dr. Slade failed to demonstrate that his exclusion was for an unlawful reason...

Although it is unclear from the record why Caesars initially evicted Dr. Slade from its property in Mississippi and this question was not argued or considered below, it does appear that his exclusion from Caesars' Las Vegas properties was based on that prior eviction. Dr. Slade does not argue on appeal, nor did he litigate at district court, that he was excluded from Caesars' properties for an unlawful reason. In his complaint, Dr. Slade simply argued that he never acted “disorderly” on a Caesars property or “cause[d] injury to any company affiliated with Caesars” and alleged a breach of the duty of public access and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Dr. Slade did not ask for discovery on the reason for his exclusion, which he undoubtedly would have been entitled to. Because Dr. Slade failed to demonstrate that his exclusion from Caesars' properties was for unlawful reasons, we conclude “beyond a doubt that [he] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him] to relief.” Id.

One dissenter argues that casinos are granted special privileges under the statute which allows them to exclude for any purpose which differs from other innkeepers. His dissent argues essentially that the innkeeper has a duty to provide accommodation and that the casino must provide a valid reason to exclude; otherwise it is discriminatory.

Quote: Dissenter

Here, Slade alleged that Caesars violated the common-law duty of innkeepers and, drawing every inference in his favor, he sufficiently alleged that he intended to patronize the inn. Moreover, even if he only wanted to attend the convention, it is not clear that the public amusement rule, rather than the innkeeper rule, should apply. As Las Vegas continues to market itself as a convention-center destination, a policy that would allow a hotel-casino to become the exclusive venue for conventions, yet retain unfettered discretion to exclude persons who want to attend those conventions, invokes the same concerns that drove the innkeeper common law—a theory based on the monopolistic nature of the inn.

The majority incorrectly interprets the monopolistic nature of convention centers, arguing that “practically every large gaming establishment has sizeable meeting areas, resulting in fierce competition, [which] in no way implicates the concerns expressed in the original innkeeper common-law rule.” This interpretation fails to address the exclusivity of a particular convention. While venue-shopping, a business wishing to host a convention has many options, but once that business selects a particular venue, it becomes the exclusive venue for that convention. As is the case here, the medical convention Slade wished to attend was hosted by a Caesars property. After being excluded, Slade could not attend the same convention at another location because that particular Caesars' property was the exclusive venue for the convention. Thus, the concept of a virtual monopoly is arguably as present, if not more, for conventions than for innkeepers. But even assuming the public amusement rule, not the innkeeper rule, applies to the pure convention-goer, it is not possible to draw this much from the record below at this stage of the case, where, on the face of the pleadings, Slade alleges that he was invoking the common-law right not to be excluded by an innkeeper from the inn.

The majority correctly observes that, under NRS 651.070, Caesars cannot illegally discriminate against Slade or other prospective patrons on the basis of race or other protected status. But this statutory prohibition requires the excluded patron to plead and prove the illegal discrimination. The common law, by contrast, requires the innkeeper to give a reason for the exclusion, rather than rest on the right to exclude for any reason, or no given reason at all. The difference is meaningful, as the common law recognized.

The record in this case is wholly undeveloped. We do not know, for example, why Caesars sent Slade the letter it did, or whether Slade could attend the medical convention without walking across the casino floor. Without more than the hare allegations in Slade's complaint, though, I cannot reconcile an absolute right to exclude for any reason or no reason at all to the entire premises of a hotel-casino with the common-law duty of innkeepers, which only allows exclusion for good cause. Thus, I would reverse the district court's dismissal of Slade's complaint and remand for further proceedings.

Additional dissent (case was decided 3-2)

Quote: additional dissent

I join in the dissent authored by Justice Pickering, but I write separately because I cannot support the majority's conclusion that a plaintiff bears the responsibility of proving, prior to conducting discovery, that a gaming and entertainment corporation has chosen to discriminate against him for an unlawful reason.

The majority correctly commences with the plain language of the statute. NRS 463.0129(3)(a) certainly permits “a gaming establishment to exclude any person from gaming activities or eject any person from the premises of the establishment for any reason.” The majority's opinion today, if not narrowly read, could be interpreted to say that a casino can exclude any person for any reason or for no reason at all, which is contrary to Nevada law.

This distinction is important here because in its majority opinion today, this court has precluded Dr. Slade from ascertaining why Caesars Entertainment excluded him from its properties. The reason for Dr. Slade's exclusion is crucial. Although the statute allows Caesars to exclude him for any reason, NRS 651.070 prevents “any place of public accommodation” from discriminating “on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression.”
This case is not the first time that this court or the United States Supreme Court has held that a right to exclude for any reason is not without its limits.

The problem I have with these laws, is the use of "private property." What exactly constitutes private property when the said property is publicly owned through shares of stock?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The problem I have with these laws, is the use of "private property." What exactly constitutes private property when the said property is publicly owned through shares of stock?

You could make the argument for any publicly traded corporation. Unfortunately, the definition of private property is property owned by individuals and corporations.

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The problem I have with these laws, is the use of "private property." What exactly constitutes private property when the said property is publicly owned through shares of stock?

You could make the argument for any publicly traded corporation. Unfortunately, the definition of private property is property owned by individuals and corporations.

In that case, you can say that the sidewalk anywhere in the country is private property owner by the citizens of that city or municipality. Point is, where do you daw the line?

With common sense.

Easy. Ownership. If the sidewalk is owned by the city, then it's public (though you might have to shovel snow and keep it clear) but are not responsible for maintaining it. Corporations are available to be bought by the public at a set share price. However, the public does not own the company. Only shareholders of the company own the company. Therefore, it is a conglomeration of private individuals that own the company. Publicly-traded <> public.

Quote: billryan

With common sense.

There is none in this country. Look at who is the president and who his opponent was....