Greater Loretta Imp. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Boone
234 So. 2d 665, 42 A.L.R. 3d 632 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a term in a state constitution, such as 'lottery,' is ambiguous and has been subject to conflicting judicial interpretations, a legislative enactment defining or construing that term is controlling and will be upheld by the courts unless it is manifestly erroneous.
Facts:
- The Greater Loretta Improvement Association was a non-profit corporation engaged in charitable and civic works.
- In 1967, the Florida Legislature enacted a statute, Fla. Stat. § 849.093, permitting qualified non-profit organizations to conduct bingo games.
- Following the statute's passage, the Association began conducting bingo games at its clubhouse.
- The games were operated in full compliance with the statutory guidelines.
- Participants paid money for one or more bingo cards.
- Numbers were drawn by chance from a receptacle and announced to the players.
- The first player to cover five numbers in a required pattern on their card was declared the winner and received a predetermined cash prize.
- Arthur T. Boone, a private citizen, protested the conducting of these bingo games.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur T. Boone, in the name of the State, filed a lawsuit against the Greater Loretta Improvement Association in the Circuit Court for Duval County, the trial court of first instance.
- Boone sought an injunction to stop the Association from conducting bingo games, arguing they were an illegal lottery and thus a public nuisance.
- The Circuit Court granted summary final judgment in favor of Boone.
- The trial court's judgment declared the state's Bingo Statute (Fla. Stat. § 849.093) unconstitutional and void.
- The trial court issued an injunction prohibiting the Association from conducting bingo games.
- The Greater Loretta Improvement Association (appellant) filed a direct appeal of the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida statute authorizing certain non-profit organizations to conduct bingo games (Fla. Stat. § 849.093) violate the Florida Constitution's prohibition against lotteries?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, J.
No, the Florida statute authorizing bingo for non-profits does not violate the state constitution's prohibition on lotteries. The term 'lottery' is not defined in the constitution and has been interpreted inconsistently by this Court. Where a constitutional provision is susceptible to multiple constructions, the legislature's interpretation is well-nigh controlling. Based on historical context and precedent such as Lee v. City of Miami, the constitutional prohibition was aimed at widespread, state-chartered lotteries that were a 'widespread pestilence,' not smaller games like bingo for charitable purposes. Furthermore, the recently adopted 1968 Constitution prohibits lotteries 'other than the types of pari-mutuel pools authorized by law,' which the court broadly interprets as grandfathering in then-legal forms of gambling, including bingo, by construing bingo as a type of pari-mutuel pool.
Concurring - Ervin, C.J.
I concur with the majority. It is hypocritically inconsistent for the state to permit gambling on horse racing, dog racing, and jai alai while banning bingo. The question of whether to permit bingo is a matter of public policy for the legislature to decide, and the court should defer to the legislative wisdom and policy determination implicit in the statute.
Dissenting - Carlton, J.
Yes, the bingo statute violates the Florida Constitution's lottery prohibition. A lottery is universally defined as a scheme involving three elements: consideration, prize, and an award determined by chance. Bingo indisputably meets this definition. The constitutional language 'Lotteries are hereby prohibited' is unambiguous and applies to all such schemes, regardless of their size, scope, or charitable purpose. The majority's reliance on a narrow historical interpretation from Lee v. City of Miami is flawed, and its conclusion that bingo is a 'pari-mutuel pool' is an audacious and incorrect stretching of that term's specific legal meaning. The proper way to legalize bingo is through a constitutional amendment, not a statute that directly contravenes the constitution's plain language.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of judicial deference to legislative interpretations of ambiguous constitutional terms. It empowers the legislature to define the scope of constitutional prohibitions, effectively allowing it to carve out exceptions for activities like charitable bingo that might otherwise fall under a broad definition of 'lottery'. The court's controversial expansion of the term 'pari-mutuel pool' to include bingo creates a significant precedent, signaling a willingness to adopt pragmatic interpretations to uphold legislative policy choices regarding gambling. The case serves as a key example of the tension between strict constitutional interpretation and deference to the legislative branch, especially when relying on older, conflicting precedents.
