Case Law Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv. Inc. v. Warren

Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv. Inc. v. Warren

Document Cited Authorities (201) Cited in (37) Related (1)

721 F.Supp.2d 1079

HOPE FOR FAMILIES & COMMUNITY SERVICE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.David WARREN, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Macon County, Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., and Milton McGregor, Defendants.

Case No. 3:06-CV-1113-WKW[WO].

United States District Court,

M.D. Alabama,

Eastern Division.

June 30, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Michael Todd Sansbury, Robert Keeling Spotswood, Grace Long Kipp, John Singleton Pitts Samford, Spotswood, Sansom & Sansbury LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Hilary Yother Parks, James Harold Anderson, Beers, Anderson, Jackson, Patty & Fawal, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Augusta Salem Dowd, Hope Marshall, John Mark White, U.W. Clemon, Katherine Rogers Brown, Rebecca Depalma, White Arnold & Dowd PC, Khristi Doss Driver, Patricia C. Diak, Peter John Tepley, William Mayfield Slaughter, Peter John Tepley, Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Charlanna White Spencer, John Merrill Bolton, III, Doy Leale McCall, III, Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

W. KEITH WATKINS, District Judge.

Given the complexity of this case and for the reader's convenience, this opinion is prefaced with the following table of contents. 

+--------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION          ¦1086¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
¦II. ¦JURISDICTION AND VENUE¦1088¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
¦III.¦STANDARD OF REVIEW    ¦1088¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
+----+----------------------+----¦
¦IV. ¦BACKGROUND            ¦1090¦
+--------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Ratification of Amendment No. 744                                   ¦1090¦
++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦B.¦Parties                                                             ¦1090¦
++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦C.¦Sheriff Warren's Rules and Regulations Governing Bingo in Macon     ¦1093¦
¦¦  ¦County                                                              ¦    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦Original Rules (December 2003)                                    ¦1093¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦2.¦First Amended Rules (June 2004)                                   ¦1097¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦3.¦Second Amended Rules (January 2005)                               ¦1098¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦4.¦VictoryLand's Electronic Bingo Licenses                           ¦1100¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦5.¦VictoryLand's and the Charities' Income                           ¦1102¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦6.¦Lucky Palace's Pursuit of Class B Bingo Operations in Macon County¦1103¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦7.¦This Lawsuit (December 2006)                                      ¦1106¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦8.¦Third Amended Rules (December 2008)                               ¦1107¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+-------------------+
+--+-----------+----¦
¦V.¦DISCUSSION ¦1108¦
+-------------------+
 
+--------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦RICO (Counts I and II) ¦1108¦
+--------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦§ 1962(c)-Count I ¦1108¦
+----------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Bribery: Alabama Code § 13A-10-61(a)¦1109¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
 
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦i.  ¦Nature of the Theory                          ¦1109¦
+++++----+----------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦ii. ¦Grounds for Summary Judgment                  ¦1110¦
+++++----+----------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦    ¦Thing of Value, Pecuniary Benefit, and Corrupt¦    ¦
¦¦¦¦¦iii.¦                                              ¦1110¦
¦¦¦¦¦    ¦Influence                                     ¦    ¦
+++++----+----------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦iv. ¦Alabama Bribery Law                           ¦1112¦
+++++----+----------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦v.  ¦Application                                   ¦1115¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦b.¦Honest Services Mail and Wire Fraud: § 1962(c)¦1119¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+
 
+-------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦i.  ¦Nature of the Theory         ¦1119¦
+++++----+-----------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦ii. ¦Initial Observation: Skilling¦1120¦
+++++----+-----------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦iii.¦Grounds for Summary Judgment ¦1122¦
+++++----+-----------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦iv. ¦§ 1964(c): RICO Standing     ¦1123¦
+-------------------------------------------+
 
+-------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦¦a.¦Injury to Business or Property¦1123¦
++++++--+------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦¦b.¦Proximate Cause               ¦1125¦
+-------------------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------+
¦¦¦2.¦§ 1962(d)-Count II ¦1134¦
+-----------------------------+
 
+---------------------------------------------+
¦¦B.¦Equal Protection (Counts III and IV)¦1134¦
+---------------------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦Vice Activities                                                   ¦1136¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦2.¦Facial Challenges to the Second Amended Rules (The First Category)¦1137¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Rational Basis Review                              ¦1137¦
++++--+---------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Existing Facility Requirement                      ¦1140¦
++++--+---------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦c.¦Numerical Licensing Requirements                   ¦1145¦
++++--+---------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦d.¦Plaintiffs' Arguments Against Rational Basis Review¦1150¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦3.¦Disparate Impact (Second Category)                                 ¦1153¦
+++--+-------------------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦4.¦Unequal Administration of a Facially Neutral Statute (Third        ¦1155¦
¦¦¦  ¦Category)                                                          ¦    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Nature of the Theory ¦1155¦
++++--+---------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Analysis             ¦1156¦
+--------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦i.¦Intentional Discrimination¦1156¦
+--------------------------------------+
 
+-------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦¦(a)¦E & T Realty and Olech ¦1156¦
++++++---+-----------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦¦¦(b)¦Analysis               ¦1159¦
+-------------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦¦ii.¦Similarly Situated ¦1162¦
+--------------------------------+
 
+----------------------+
¦¦¦¦c.¦Conclusion ¦1167¦
+----------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦5.¦§ 1983 Conspiracy to Deny Equal Protection¦1167¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion¦1167¦
++++--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion¦1168¦
+----------------------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦C.¦Issues Particular to Sheriff Warren's Summary Judgment Motion¦1168¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦Absolute Legislative Immunity                         ¦1168¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦2.¦Qualified Immunity                                    ¦1170¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦3.¦Article III Standing                                  ¦1170¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦4.¦Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies                 ¦1173¦
+++--+------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦¦¦  ¦Equal Protection Claims and Statute of Limitations: RG¦    ¦
¦¦¦5.¦                                                      ¦1173¦
¦¦¦  ¦Apartments and Greater White Church                   ¦    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+---------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Count III ¦1174¦
++++--+----------+----¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Count IV  ¦1176¦
+---------------------+
 
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦D.¦State Law Claims
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | Alabama Supreme Court – 2016
State v. $223,405.86
"... ... petition named Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. ("MCGP"), and KCED as the persons found in ... See, e.g., Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So.3d 65, 78 (Ala.2009) ; ... See Hope for Families & Cmty. Serv. v. Warren, 721 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2016
Daily v. Rawlings Co.
"... ... Producers Video , Inc ., 216 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.2000) ( quoting ... Hope For Families & Cmty ... Serv ., Inc ... v ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama – 2011
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc.
"... ... Dist. LEXIS 16528 at *28; Burlington N.R.R. Co. v. Warren, 574 So.2d 758, 766–67 (Ala.1990); Coaker v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of ... is “the existence of protectible business relationship”) with Hope for Families & Cmty. Serv. v. Warren, 721 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1177 ... "
Document | Wisconsin Supreme Court – 2010
Tews v. NHI, LLC
"... ... NHI, LLC, J-Star Bodco, Inc. n/k/a 1234 Wisconsin, Inc., Nasco Holdings, ... For a similar explanation, see Hope for Families & Community Service, Inc. v. Warren ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2012
Thomas Petroleum, LLC v. Lloyd
"... ... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).         If ... See Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv., Inc. v. Warren, 721 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2012
Pro Te Solutio - Vol. 5 No. 2, March 2012
"...Id. at 657-59 (italics in original; internal citations omitted).34 130 S. Ct. 983, 989 (2010). See Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv., Inc. v. Warren, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1130 (M.D. Ala. 2010) — “Bridge, however, did not disturb Anza’s and Holmes’s holdings that the alleged violation must be..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Alabama Supreme Court – 2016
State v. $223,405.86
"... ... petition named Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. ("MCGP"), and KCED as the persons found in ... See, e.g., Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So.3d 65, 78 (Ala.2009) ; ... See Hope for Families & Cmty. Serv. v. Warren, 721 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2016
Daily v. Rawlings Co.
"... ... Producers Video , Inc ., 216 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.2000) ( quoting ... Hope For Families & Cmty ... Serv ., Inc ... v ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama – 2011
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc.
"... ... Dist. LEXIS 16528 at *28; Burlington N.R.R. Co. v. Warren, 574 So.2d 758, 766–67 (Ala.1990); Coaker v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of ... is “the existence of protectible business relationship”) with Hope for Families & Cmty. Serv. v. Warren, 721 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1177 ... "
Document | Wisconsin Supreme Court – 2010
Tews v. NHI, LLC
"... ... NHI, LLC, J-Star Bodco, Inc. n/k/a 1234 Wisconsin, Inc., Nasco Holdings, ... For a similar explanation, see Hope for Families & Community Service, Inc. v. Warren ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2012
Thomas Petroleum, LLC v. Lloyd
"... ... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).         If ... See Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv., Inc. v. Warren, 721 ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2012
Pro Te Solutio - Vol. 5 No. 2, March 2012
"...Id. at 657-59 (italics in original; internal citations omitted).34 130 S. Ct. 983, 989 (2010). See Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv., Inc. v. Warren, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1130 (M.D. Ala. 2010) — “Bridge, however, did not disturb Anza’s and Holmes’s holdings that the alleged violation must be..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.