Corbin v. O'KEEFE
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1979)
- Russell Erickson v. Desert Palace, Incorporated (9th Cir. 1991)
- Erickson v. Desert Palace, Inc. (9th Cir. 1991)
- National Recovery Systems v. Feltman (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)
- Sigel v. McEvoy (Nev. 1985)
- State Gaming Control Board v. Breen (Nev. 1983)
- Hotel Riviera, Inc. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1983)
- Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States (9th Cir. 1982)
- Zaika v. Del E. Webb Corp. (District Court, D. Nevada 1981)
- Sandler v. EIGHTH JUD. DIST. COURT, ETC. (Nev. 1980)
- Sea Air Support, Inc. v. Herrmann (Nev. 1980)
- Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States (District Court, D. Nevada 1980)
- Sandler v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (Nev. 1980)
- Williams v. Weber Mesa Ditch Extension Co. (Wyo. 1977)
- Recovery Consultants, Inc. v. Shih-Hsieh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
By this action Kenneth W. Corbin seeks to recover $20,000 on a winning bet of $100 at 200-to-l odds that the Boston Red Sox would win the American Baseball League pennant in 1967. Corbin placed the bet at the Jockey Turf Club in March 1967. When he attempted to collect on the bet in the fall of 1967 the club’s proprietors rebuffed his attempts on the basis that the bet had been taken by an employee who failed to record it and who kept the money, so the club never received the bet.
Corbin and his attorneys subsequently sought aid of the Nevada Gaming Control Board but were denied relief. Thereafter, Corbin commenced this civil action seeking to enforce the bet in the Second Judicial District Court. The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss on the basis that gambling debts are not collectible through the courts.
*190 1. It is clear from the complaint and record in this case that what is presented is a court action for recovery of a gambling debt. Corbin makes recurring references to the asserted arbitrariness of the Gaming Control Board in denying his claim, but he is not seeking review of the administrative procedures followed. Therefore, we need not address such questions as the asserted arbitrariness, exhaustion of administrative remedies and, indeed, the very reviewability of administrative procedures in this area.
2. We are thus presented with the same question presented in Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958). Corbin concedes as much, but urges us to overturn Weisbrod.
We decline to do so. This court has refused to aid in the collection of gambling debts for nearly a century and we will not depart from those cases. See especially Scott v. Courtney, 7 Nev. 419 (1872); West Indies v. First Nat. Bank, 67 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144 (1950); and Weisbrod.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.