Pa. Supreme Court Rejects Petition to Extend Stay on Regulating Games of Skill

NewsAppellate LawPa. Supreme Court Rejects Petition to Extend Stay on Regulating Games of SkillA bipartisan group of state legislators requested an additional 120 days before the ruling would go into effect on Oct. 14, seeking additional time to advance legislation regulating the newly-defined gambling devices.

Email ShareFont SizeSmallMediumLarge PrintThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday rejected a King’s Bench petition, or plenary jurisdiction, to extend a stay on enforcement of its prior decision deeming unlicensed operation of “games of skill” violate state law.

Exclusive ContentA Subscription is Required to Access this Content.

Strategic Intelligence – Business of law market insights from experts and analysts across all major legal marketsIntegrated Insights – Compass and Radar context built right into articles.Personalized Experience – Tailored homepage content and curated newsletters.Smart Search & Alerts – Powerful search functionality and real-time updates.Learn more

Questions? Contact us at [email protected] | 1-855-808-4530 (Americas) | 44(0) 800 098 386009 (UK & Europe)

Email ShareFont SizeSmallMediumLarge PrintPage printed from:

The City of Philadelphia claimed CVS, Albertsons and Acme perpetuated a local public health and safety emergency. The pharmacies objected to the claims, arguing they were individual injuries not constituting widespread harm.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 5-2 opinion upholding the state’s $250,000 cap on damages brought against the state, justifying the legislature’s constitutional right to implement it while urging the state to redress it to be more just.

Accepting a Philadelphia Bar Association award Thursday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson praised Justice William J. Brennan Jr.’s commitment to democratic values and said judicial dissents reflect “faith in the future.”

“No authoritative case holds that being unable to verify a defendant’s address on three search engines—despite the address being verifiable on other popular platforms—constitutes reasonable diligence,” wrote U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, of the Northern District of Illinois.

Experts told Law.com that they’ve never seen a case quite like this before.