25 C.F.R. § 502.4
Class III gaming
Class III gaming means all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming, including but not limited to:
(a) Any house banking game, including but not limited to—
(1) Card games such as baccarat, chemin de fer, blackjack (21), and pai gow (if played as house banking games);
(2) Casino games such as roulette, craps, and keno;
(b) Any slot machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1171(a)(1) and electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance;
(c) Any sports betting and parimutuel wagering including but not limited to wagering on horse racing, dog racing or jai alai; or
(d) Lotteries.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003).
Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003). “These include pari-mutuel horse race wagering, lotteries, banking card games such as baccarat, chemin de fer and blackjack, electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of *842 chance, and slot machines ( 25 USC § 2703 [7] [B]; [8]; 25 CFR 502.4 [c], [d]). [8] IGRA…”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “§ 2703 (7)(A); 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 . The Management Agreement did not cover Class II games (bingo, lotto, and games similar to bingo or lotto), which were to be managed by the Tribe.”
Dalton v. Pataki, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). “[a]ny house banking game" such as baccarat or black-jack, casino games including roulette or keno, slot machines, sports betting and lotteries ( see 25 CFR 502.4). [2] Indian lands are defined as "all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation; and .”
Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 154 P.3d 644 (N.M. 2007). “25 C.F.R. § 502.4 (1992). IGRA permits Class III gaming if it is (1) authorized by ordinance or resolution of the governing body of the tribe and the Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission, (2) located in a state that permits such gaming, and (3) covered by a…”
Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 3d 279 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “; 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 ; Amador Cty., Cal. v. Salazar , 640 F.”
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY Gen. RE: VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING in Florida. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. Re: Voter Control of Gambling in Florida (FIS), 215 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2017). “(“IGRA”), and in 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 , upon adoption of this amendment, and any that are added to such definition of Class III gaming in the future.”
United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2000). “25 C.F.R. § 502.4 (emphasis added). 5 . We note the government provides no definition of the term "continuous win.”
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013). “See 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 . The Final Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, governs the Tribe’s use of Class III games.”
Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “§ 2703(8); 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 . Class I gaming consists of social gaming for minimal prizes and traditional forms of Indian gaming in connection with tribal ceremonies.”
State v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 363 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “; 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 ; Amador Cty. v. Salazar , 640 F.”
At & T Corp. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 295 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002). “I would reach the merits and conclude that the IGRA is unambiguous in its failure to authorize the NIL. A. The IGRA Unambiguously Requires the Tribe’s Gaming Operations to be Conducted on Indian Lands.”
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 827 F. Supp. 26 (D.D.C. 1993). “Plaintiffs also challenge 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 , the definition of “class III gaming.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.