Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (2026)

Resolution of claim by patron for payment of gaming debt not evidenced by credit instrument; investigation and decision of executive director

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves:
- (a) At least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the licensee shall immediately notify the executive director; or
- (b) Less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the licensee shall inform the patron of his right to request that the executive director conduct an investigation.
  The executive director shall conduct whatever investigation is deemed necessary and shall determine whether payment should be made.

(2) The executive director shall mail written notice to the commission, the licensee and the patron of his decision resolving the dispute within thirty (30) days after the date the executive director first receives notification from the licensee or a request to conduct an investigation from the patron.

(3) Failure to notify the executive director or patron as provided in subsection (1) is grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Sections 75-76-103 through 75-76-119, inclusive.

(4) The decision of the executive director is effective on the date the aggrieved party receives notice of the decision. The date of receipt is presumed to be the date specified on the return receipt.

(5) Notice of the decision of the executive director shall be deemed sufficient if it is mailed to the last known address of the licensee and patron. The date of mailing may be proven by a certificate signed by an employee of the executive director that specifies the time the notice was mailed. The notice is presumed to have been received by the licensee or the patron five (5) days after it is deposited with the United States Postal Service with the postage thereon prepaid.

Laws, 1990 Ex Sess, ch. 45, § 80, eff. 6/29/1990.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1995–2011 · leading case: Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (1991), the Executive Director of the Commission appointed agent Gorman to investigate the claim.”

Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp., 697 So. 2d 378 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 3× “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (1) (1972) states that: whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars…”

Grand Casino Biloxi v. Hallmark, 823 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 6× “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 states that "(1) whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves: (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”

Thomas v. Isle of Capri Casino & Cds, 781 So. 2d 125 (Miss. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (2000). ¶ 27. According to the Gaming Control Act, the casino, not the patron, is responsible for reporting such disputes to the Commission.”

Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v. Effie Freeman (Miss. 1998). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (1991), the Executive Director of the Commission appointed agent Gorman to investigate the claim.”

Grand Casino Biloxi v. David Hallmark (Miss. 2000). · cites it 6× “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 states that "(1) whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves: (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”

Tina Louise Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp (Miss. 1995). · cites it 2× “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (1) (1972) states that: whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars…”

Payton v. Boomtown Casino, 61 So. 3d 969 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (Rev.2009). By statute the executive director “shall conduct whatever investigation is deemed necessary and determine whether payment should be made.”

Burse v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp., 919 So. 2d 1014 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(2) (Rev.2000).”

James C. Thomas v. Isle of Capri Casino (Miss. 1999). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (2000). ¶27. According to the Gaming Control Act, the casino, not the patron, is responsible for reporting such disputes to the Commission.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1) — 1 case

Grand Casino Biloxi v. Hallmark, 823 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 states that "(1) whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves: (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1)(a) — 1 case

Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999). “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159 (1991), the Executive Director of the Commission appointed agent Gorman to investigate the claim.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1)(b) — 1 case

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(2) — 1 case

Burse v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp., 919 So. 2d 1014 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(2) (Rev.2000).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(3) — 1 case

Grand Casino Biloxi v. David Hallmark (Miss. 2000). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159 states that "(1) whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves: (a) at least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”

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.