Texas Courts of Appeals
City of Fort Worth v. Rylie
No. 02-17-00185-CV 3/17/22
Issue:
Are eight-liner video gambling machines unconstitutional?
Holding:
Yes. Because the slot machines at issue are lotteries, they are illegal. Originally considering whether Tex. Occ. Code Chapter 2153 (which regulates “skill or pleasure coin-operated machines”) preempted a city’s ability to regulate game rooms, the court of appeals, on remand from the Supreme Court, was tasked with first determining whether eight-liner gambling machines are illegal. The court looked to common law, which has unanimously concluded that the characteristics of a lottery include “chance, prize, and consideration…” Here, the eight-liners award prizes by chance and for consideration. As a result, the court held slot machines (video or otherwise) are lotteries. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The dispute in this case is fundamentally over whether a legislative enactment preempts a city ordinance. The court of appeals decided in favor of the city ordinance, holding that the legislative enactment does not apply because it does not apply to lotteries. The analysis in this case is an exercise in constitutional interpretation, not statutory analysis or a determination of legislative intent. The court looked to what the framers of the Texas Constitution thought a lottery was, not the Texas Legislature. In finding that eight-liners are lotteries, the court did not expressly address whether eight-liners are illegal or whether the so-called “fuzzy animal” exclusion of Section 47.01(4)(B) of the Penal Code applies. That is because, in holding that eight-liners are lotteries, the court has held that they are, therefore, unconstitutional. Perhaps you want to know if there is any problem with the machines at well-known amusement centers. That was not before the court in this case, but the court did appear to cite with approval the suggestion that these machines are games of skill, not chance, and therefore cannot be lotteries in the first place. That suggestion is on page 11 of the court’s opinion. You will want to go to page 11 for another reason. The opinion contains a triumphant picture of Chuck E. Cheese himself.
Facebook v. Doe
No. 14-19-00854-CV 4/12/22
Issue:
Does the State of Texas have specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant (Facebook) as it relates to a plaintiff’s statutory human-trafficking claim (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 98.002)?
Holding:
Yes. Specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be asserted where minimum contacts with the forum state are established. Minimum contact can be shown when a defendant “(1) purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, and (2) the lawsuit arises or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Here, the court concluded that the plaintiff satisfied these requirements by showing (1) that Facebook conducts and benefits from substantial business in Texas, and (2) through its operation of its social-networking platform (by collecting personal information and connecting users), facilitated and profited from her exploitation when it connected and enabled a trafficker to target her through the platform. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision is not about the merits of the plaintiff’s claim—that Facebook is liable under Section 98.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code for intentionally or knowingly benefitting from participating in a venture that traffics another person. As to the matter of whether Texas has personal jurisdiction over Facebook, the court of appeals had no difficulty in reaching its conclusion, following the well-settled law on the matter. There will certainly be more litigation in this case, but the personal jurisdiction question appears to be reliably decided in the plaintiff’s favor.
Texas Attorney General Opinion Request
RQ-0453-KP 4/6/22
Issue:
Can a person appointed to a city police reserve force continue to serve in that position after being elected as a city councilmember?
Requested By:
Tom Selleck, Brazoria County Criminal District Attorney
Hinton Memorial Scholarship Reminder
Want to go to the 2022 TDCAA Annual Criminal and Civil Law Conference but don’t have the funds? Just a reminder that the Foundation, through generous gifts in memory of Mike Hinton, can provide you with a scholarship! All you need to do is fill out the application HERE and send it in. Questions? Just call Rob at 512/971-8425. But hurry, applications are due April 30.