You are here: Home / Court Rulings / State / Sept. 1998: Oliver v County of Los Angeles

Sept. 1998: Oliver v County of Los Angeles

“[Newjack] is not one of the games specifically mentioned in section 330. The question of its legality or illegality thus depends upon whether it qualifies as either a banking or a percentage game. This is an issue of law. [Citations.]” (Sullivan v. Fox) In the instant case, we expand this analysis and we now hold that a game will be determined to be a banking game if under the rules of that game, it is possible that the house, another entity, a player, or an observer can maintain a bank or operate as a bank during the play of the game. In Huntington Park, the trial court observed that the position of player-dealer in pai gow “continually and systematically rotates among each of the participants.” (Id. at p. 245.)

PDF document icon VINCENT OLIVER,.pdf — PDF document, 29 KB (29906 bytes)

Document Actions