23 Nov Video Strip Poker Supreme FULL VERSION UPD
Video Strip Poker Supreme FULL VERSION
Synopsis: The Supreme Court, Jones, S.J., heard this appeal involving a November 19, 2011 resolution of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Band) seeking, by way of a constitutional amendment, to allow the Band to operate a casino on an eighty-eight-acre parcel of land that was owned by the Band. The Band’s parcel of land is located in Grand Traverse County, Michigan, within the jurisdiction of the Detroit River International Waterway Compact Commission (Commission). The Commission could not approve the Band’s proposed casino because a prior amendment to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Constitution, in an effort to regulate casino gambling, prohibited the Band from operating a casino within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Band sought to amend its Constitution to allow the operation of a casino on its land. Prior to the Band’s vote on November 19, 2011, the Commission issued a resolution informing the Band that, under Michigan law, it must operate a casino on the Band’s land in a manner consistent with a gaming ordinance in effect in Grand Traverse County. The Commission’s resolution also advised the Band that, to sell or lease its land for casino purposes, the Band was required to submit its proposed casino plan for approval. The Band passed a resolution in November 2011, in which it voted, with a majority, to amend its Constitution and to allow the Band to operate a casino on its land. The Commission rejected the Band’s proposed casino plan, finding it inconsistent with Grand Traverse County’s gambling ordinance. The Commission also rejected a request by the Band for a certificate of consent to operate a riverboat casino on the Band’s land. The circuit court, Wilson, J., denied the Band’s motion for summary disposition on its action for declaratory judgment. Following a bench trial, the court found that the Band’s proposed casino plan was inconsistent with the state law at the time the Band passed its resolution. Accordingly, the court ruled that the Band was not permitted to authorize casino gambling on its land. The court also found that the Band’s proposed casino was inconsistent with the Grand Traverse County gambling ordinance. The court then denied the Band’s application for declaratory judgment and ordered the Band to close its casino within ninety days and comply with the Commission’s resolution. The circuit court also issued a permanent injunction to enjoin the Band from operating a casino on its land within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
software patents on abstract ideas don’t even have the benefit of a procedural requirement of utility, as the us supreme court ruled in gottschalk v. benson. software patents on abstract ideas don’t even have the benefit of a procedural requirement of utility, as the us supreme court ruled in gottschalk v. the court stated that when an invention is described in “the abstract,” “prior art has not been ‘invented’ by another.” therefore software patents on abstract ideas don’t even have the benefit of a procedural requirement of utility, as the us supreme court ruled in gottschalk v. benson. the court stated that when an invention is described in “the abstract,” “prior art has not been ‘invented’ by another.” therefore software patents on abstract ideas don’t even have the benefit of a procedural requirement of utility, as the us supreme court ruled in gottschalk v. see also roberts v. rader, no. 15-1547, 2016 wl 924175 (u.s. jan. 25, 2016) (novel, non-jeu-d’oeuf poker game abstract), which held that a poker-style game with dice for randomization was not patent eligible because it was directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a game of chance), as opposed to a new physical or conventional way of playing poker. the supreme court has stated that the “inventive concept” of a patent is what makes a product patentable. see diamond v. chakrabarty, 447 u. 303, 308 (1980) (“ ‘inventive concept’ in the patent law is the characteristic that distinguishes a patent invention from a predictable application of prior art.”).