Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Froug v. CARNIVAL LEISURE INDUS. LTD. (fladistctapp, 1993-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Froug v. CARNIVAL LEISURE INDUS. LTD.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
See § 849.26, Fla. Stat. (1991); Carp v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 211 So.2d 240, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), writ discharged as improvidently issued, 219 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1969); Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), appeal dismissed, 209 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1968); Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hilton International Co. v. Carbone
Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. · 1977 · confidence medium
A. Jernigan, supra at 831.
discussed Cited "see" Barquin v. Flores
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), appeal dismissed, 209 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1968); Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); § 849.26, Fla. Stat. (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mirage-Casino Hotel v. Simpson (In Re Simpson)
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Froug v. Carnival Leisure Industries, Ltd., 627 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1994); see also Barquin v. Flores, 459 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1984); see also Carp v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 211 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1968); see also Dorado Beach Hotel Corporation v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1967); see also Young v. Sands, 122 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1960). 31 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John Goodwin, Jr., Lois Goodwin, the Mead Corporation v. George Fischer Foundry Systems, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967); c.f, Intercontinental Hotels v. Golden, supra. The issue involved in this case, however, is not one that can be said to be so far outside the pale of social, economic and moral standards currently imposed by our civilization as to be violative of the strong public policy of the State of Alabama.
DORADO BEACH HOTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant,
v.
W.A. JERNIGAN, Appellee.
I-356.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sep 12, 1967.
202 So. 2d 830
Rawls.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Williams, Salomon & Kenney, Miami, for appellant.

Gillis E. Powell, Crestview, for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge

Dorado Beach Hotel Corporation has appealed from a summary final judgment denying it the right to collect a gambling debt in Florida. The sole question is, Can a gambling obligation valid in Puerto Rico where created be enforced in Florida?

W.A. Jernigan, a Florida resident, while in Puerto Rico where casino gambling is legal, gambled in Appellant's licensed casino, lost money and gave Appellant a check for $6,000.00 to pay for his losses. Jernigan then stopped payment on the check, and the Hotel brought this action in Florida. The trial judge entered summary final judgment for defendant on the grounds that the debt was uncollectable[*831] by virtue of Section 849.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We are in accord with the pronouncement in Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So.2d 618 (Fla.App.3d, 1960), to the effect that a gambling obligation although valid in the state where created cannot be enforced in Florida because it is contrary to public policy, and therefore affirm.

The public policy of this State is that the forms of gambling made legal are contests staged for those seeking pleasure in the State — primarily tourists. These contests are staged between men, horses or dogs, and part of the entertainment afforded to the spectators is the State's permission to wager on the outcome of these restricted events provided the State receives its "cut of the take". In essence the public policy of the State of Florida is established to permit a restricted type of gambling which is incidental to spectator sports. This State has consistently refused to permit gambling on non-spectator sports such as bookie parlors, football parlors, et cetera. Thus, the public policy of the State of Florida is well established that the State will condone certain selected forms of gambling, but it has likewise been established that the State will not lend its judicial arm to the collection of monies wagered in such enterprises not authorized by the law of the State of Florida. Although many efforts have been made to obtain legal sanction for wagering at gaming tables, such authorization has never been given; and should a citizen of the State of Florida lose at a gaming table in the State, clearly the operator could not collect through the judicial processes. It is our conclusion that this forum will not extend its judicial arm to aid in the collection of this type gambling debt whether the transaction giving rise to the loss arose in Nevada, Puerto Rico or Monte Carlo.

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C.J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.