Evidence supported Gaming Commission’s conclusion that signage on progressive video poker machine was ambiguous, thus entitling casino patron to primary progressive jackpot for descending sequential royal heart flush, even though machine’s signage listed royal flush in ascending order; there was evidence that a sequential royal flush could be ascending or descending, and machine’s signage could be interpreted as merely setting forth an example of a sequential royal flush. IGT v. Kelly, 778 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001) Suggested by Ben Frisch, West Attorney Editor
The Westlaw Insider blog features Westlaw and WestlawNext research tips, training opportunities and product info, as well as notable events and stories of interest to legal professionals. The blog is maintained by the eMarketing team and features insights and commentary from West’s reference attorneys, attorney-editors, key authors, and other contributing partners.
Headnotes
Legal News
Verdict of The Week
Research Tips
Social Media Law
Health Care Law
Evidence supported Gaming Commission’s conclusion that signage on progressive video poker machine was ambiguous, thus entitling casino patron to primary progressive jackpot for descending sequential royal heart flush, even though machine’s signage listed royal flush in ascending order; there was evidence that a sequential royal flush could be ascending or descending, and machine’s signage could be interpreted as merely setting forth an example of a sequential royal flush.
