{ "id": 4273011, "name": "EMERALD CASINO, INC., f/k/a HP, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS GAMING BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees (The Village of Rosemont, Intervenor-Plaintiff)", "name_abbreviation": "Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board", "decision_date": "2007-11-26", "docket_number": "No. 1-07-0881", "first_page": "930", "last_page": "937", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "377 Ill. App. 3d 930" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "802 N.E.2d 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "if the harm claimed by a plaintiff is speculative or contingent, the claim is unripe and the court should not decide it" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5873577 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255", "parenthetical": "if the harm claimed by a plaintiff is speculative or contingent, the claim is unripe and the court should not decide it" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/345/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "788 N.E.2d 1126", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 Ill. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 609694 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206-07" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/204/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "816 N.E.2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "732 N.E.2d 1129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 Ill. App. 3d 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 980737 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/315/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "781 N.E.2d 1072", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 2d 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1442037 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/202/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "427 N.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 Ill. 2d 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5468706 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308-09" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/86/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "837 N.E.2d 88", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 Ill. 2d 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3827755 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" }, { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/216/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "803 N.E.2d 914", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3833020 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" }, { "page": "36-37" }, { "page": "34" }, { "page": "34" }, { "page": "34" }, { "page": "36" }, { "page": "35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/346/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "861 N.E.2d 654", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Emerald II" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 Ill. 2d 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Emerald II" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "851 N.E.2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "366 Ill. App. 3d 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4265239 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" }, { "page": "116" }, { "page": "119" }, { "page": "115-16" }, { "page": "118" }, { "page": "119" }, { "page": "119" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/366/0113-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 710, "char_count": 17007, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14329117257415394 }, "sha256": "27e9e4c3b533347d1131fd25f0e068cefe992e9d2d275e1d57e98fc24bbc5b5d", "simhash": "1:89bd04f61bd57670", "word_count": 2826 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:19.728803+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "EMERALD CASINO, INC., f/k/a HP, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS GAMING BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees (The Village of Rosemont, Intervenor-Plaintiff)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn February 21, 2007, the Illinois Gaming Board adopted a resolution issuing Emerald Casino, Inc. (Emerald), a license for renewal and relocation, effective for four years, \u201csubject to revocation proceedings.\u201d The issuance of the license was pursuant to our mandate in Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, 366 Ill. App. 3d 113, 116, 851 N.E.2d 843 (2006), appeal denied, 222 Ill. 2d 570, 861 N.E.2d 654 (2006) {Emerald II). The resolution further stated the Board was not adjudicating or waiving its rights in any other proceeding, including its December 2005 revocation order and a subsequent revocation appeal.\nFollowing the resolution, the Village of Rosemont (Rosemont), joined by Emerald, filed a motion to compel compliance with our Emerald II mandate and for a rule to show cause why the Board should not be held in contempt for failing to follow the mandate. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.\nWe affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs\u2019 motion. The Board complied with our mandate in Emerald II by issuing Emerald a renewed license for a prospective four-year period. There is no revocation order before this court concerning that issue. The Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed the Board\u2019s December 2005 order revoking Emerald\u2019s license. Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, No. 4 \u2014 06\u20140051 (May 30, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We have no jurisdiction to review that decision. Nor have we been asked to review it in this appeal.\nFACTS\nIllinois\u2019s Riverboat Gambling Act (Act) authorized the Board to issue 10 licenses for riverboat gambling, the first four of them for gambling on the Mississippi River. 230 ILCS 10/7(e) (West 2004). In 1992, the Board issued one of the Mississippi River licenses to Emerald. The license was renewed for one-year periods in 1995 and 1996.\nIn April 1997, Emerald applied for a third renewal of its license. The Board refused Emerald\u2019s application. Emerald pursued an administrative appeal. Shortly thereafter, Emerald stopped operating its casino. The administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order agreeing with the Board\u2019s denial.\nThe legislature amended the Act, adding section 11.2, effective June 25, 1999. The amended subsection 11.2(a) reads as follows:\n\u201c(a) A licensee that was not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998 may apply to the Board for renewal and approval of relocation to a new home dock location authorized under Section 3(c) and the Board shall grant the application and approval upon receipt by the licensee of approval from the new municipality or county, as the case may be, in which the licensee wishes to relocate pursuant to [sjection 7(j).\u201d 230 ILCS 10/11.2(a) (West 2004).\nOnly Emerald fit that description.\nThe Board declared the ALJ\u2019s previous order moot and allowed Emerald to file a new application under the amended section. On July 7, 1999, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rosemont approved Emerald\u2019s request to dock in Rosemont. Emerald submitted its revised application for renewal and relocation on September 24, 1999.\nAt a meeting on January 30, 2001, the Board announced its intent to deny Emerald\u2019s request for renewal and relocation to Rosemont. On March 6, 2001, the Board issued its written notice of denial and filed a five-count disciplinary complaint seeking to revoke Emerald\u2019s existing license. The disciplinary proceedings were temporarily stayed due to Emerald\u2019s bankruptcy proceedings.\nOn May 21, 2001, Emerald filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to approve Emerald\u2019s application for renewal and relocation. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, disputing whether the Board had the authority to deny Emerald\u2019s application since Emerald met the two criteria set forth in section 11.2(a) of the Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board.\nOn appeal to this court, we held the word \u201cshall\u201d in section 11.2(a) was mandatory and required the Board to grant Emerald\u2019s application. Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, 346 Ill. App. 3d 18, 36, 803 N.E.2d 914 (2003) {Emerald I). We reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Emerald and Rosemont and proceed in accord with our opinion. Emerald I, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 36-37. Our mandate issued July 7, 2004.\nOn April 14, 2005, the Board resumed the revocation proceeding it had initiated against Emerald in March 2001.\nOn June 9, 2005, the circuit court entered an order directing the Board \u201cto grant Emerald\u2019s September 24, 1999 Application for Renewal and Relocation under Section 11.2 of the Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act upon receiving notice of this Order.\u201d\nOn June 29, 2005, the Board passed a resolution granting Emerald\u2019s application retroactively \u201cas of September 24, 1999, for a period of 4 years, subject to Section 11.2 of the Act being determined constitutional in Crusius.\u201d Also in 2005, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of section 11.2 in Crusius v. Illinois Gaming Board, 216 Ill. 2d 315, 333, 837 N.E.2d 88 (2005).\nEmerald and Rosemont filed motions asking the trial court to hold the Board in contempt for violating the court\u2019s order by issuing a license that was expired at issuance. The circuit court denied the motions, finding the Board\u2019s resolution was not precluded by the language of Emerald I.\nOn November 15, 2005, following a hearing, ALJ Abner J. Mikva recommended to the Board that it revoke Emerald\u2019s license. On December 20, 2005, the Board entered an order adopting the ALJ\u2019s recommendation and revoking Emerald\u2019s license. Emerald filed a petition for judicial review of the revocation order in the Fourth District of the Appellate Court.\nOn June 13, 2006, on appeal of the denial of the contempt motions, we held the Board and the circuit court had ignored the plain words of our mandate and thwarted the will of the legislature that enacted section 11.2(a). Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, 366 Ill. App. 3d 113, 116, 851 N.E.2d 843 (2006), appeal denied, 222 Ill. 2d 570, 861 N.E.2d 654 (2006) (Emerald II). We directed the circuit court to \u201corder the Board to issue Emerald\u2019s license for renewal and relocation within 30 days of the receipt of the circuit court\u2019s order. The license shall be effective as of the date of the issuance and shall remain in effect for four years, subject to revocation proceedings.\u201d Emerald II, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 119.\nOur Emerald II mandate issued on January 9, 2007. Emerald filed an emergency motion to redocket the case and for issuance of an order pursuant to the mandate. On January 29, 2007, the circuit court entered an order redocketing the case and stating:\n\u201cWithin 30 days of this Order, the Illinois Gaming Board shall issue Emerald\u2019s license for renewal and relocation, effective as of the date of the issuance and remaining in effect for four years, subject to revocation proceedings.\u201d\nOn February 16, 2007, Emerald filed an \u201cEmergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants from Interfering with Appellate Court Mandate in Emerald II and Trial Court Order of January 29, 2007.\u201d Emerald asked the court to enjoin defendants from interfering with our mandate in Emerald II and from applying the December 20, 2005, revocation order and underlying revocation proceedings to the new license. The court denied Emerald\u2019s motion on February 20, 2007. Emerald appealed the court\u2019s order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1). 188 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1). That appeal was dismissed by this court for lack of jurisdiction. Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, No. 1 \u2014 07\u20140447 (2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nOn February 21, 2007, the Board adopted and approved a resolution stating, in part:\n\u201cBE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Appellate Court\u2019s decision in Emerald [II] and the Circuit Court\u2019s January 29, 2007 order on remand, Emerald\u2019s license is issued for renewal and relocation, effective as of this date and remaining in effect for four years, subject to revocation proceedings.\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution does not constitute a finding or adjudication by the Gaming Board on any matter, is not a waiver of, and is without prejudice to, the Gaming Board\u2019s rights or position in any other matter or proceeding, including without limitation the Revocation Order and the Revocation Appeal.\u201d\nOn February 27, 2007, Rosemont filed a motion in the circuit court seeking an order compelling the Board to comply with the Emerald II mandate and the court\u2019s January 29, 2007, order, and entering a rule to show cause why the Board should not be held in contempt for failing to do so. Emerald partially joined the motion. On April 6, 2007, the court denied the motion. The court\u2019s order is the subject of the instant appeal.\nOn May 30, 2007, the Fourth District issued its decision affirming the December 20, 2005, revocation order. Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board, No. 4 \u2014 06\u20140051 (May 30, 2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nEmerald\u2019s petition for leave to appeal of the Fourth District decision is pending in the Illinois Supreme Court. The Fourth District has stayed the issuance of its mandate at Emerald\u2019s request.\nDECISION\nThe trial court is bound by this court\u2019s mandate and should consult the opinion to determine what the mandate requires. PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co., 86 Ill. 2d 291, 308-09, 427 N.E.2d 563 (1981). Whether the trial court complied with the mandate is a question of law, subject to de novo review. Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 202 Ill. 2d 344, 352, 781 N.E.2d 1072 (2002). We will overturn the trial court\u2019s denial of a motion for a finding of contempt only where the court abused its discretion. Technology Innovation Center, Inc. v. Advanced Multiuser Technologies Corp., 315 Ill. App. 3d 238, 247, 732 N.E.2d 1129 (2000); Fairbanks Capital v. Coleman, 352 111. App. 3d 550, 555, 816 N.E.2d 695 (2004).\nEmerald and Rosemont contend the Board\u2019s resolution, granting Emerald a license but reserving the right to apply the pending revocation order to the new license, thwarts our mandate in Emerald II. Rosemont contends the resolution is nonfinal and unenforceable, thus disobeying our mandate to allow plaintiffs to obtain \u201cmeaningful relief; that is, a license that can be used, that will be \u2018put to work.\u2019 \u201d Emerald II, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 115-16, quoting Emerald I, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 34.\nRosemont contends the \u201claw of the case\u201d doctrine precludes revocation of the renewed license based on the prior revocation order. Because this court was aware of the December 2005 revocation order when we decided Emerald II, and because we denied the Board\u2019s motion to stay the appeal, Rosemont says we must have intended that the prior revocation order no longer applies to Emerald\u2019s renewed application. Rosemont is mistaken.\nIn Emerald I, we clearly held the issue of renewal and relocation was separate from revocation. We said:\n\u201cNothing in section 11.2(a) prevents the Board from moving to revoke Emerald\u2019s license. In fact, the Board began revocation proceedings on March 6, 2001, obviously with something less than dispatch. The May 1999 legislative debates show us the legislature did not intend to tinker with the Board\u2019s authority to revoke Emerald\u2019s license.\u201d Emerald I, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 34.\nAgain, in Emerald II, we said:\n\u201cWe stress that our only intent is to address the question of whether our mandate has been enforced. Nothing else. Whether Emerald and Rosemont possess sufficient moral fiber to conduct and host a gambling business is not now our concern. We said before and we say again: \u2018Nothing in section 11.2(a) prevents the Board from moving to revoke Emerald\u2019s license.\u2019 Emerald [I], 346 Ill. App. 3d at 34.\u201d Emerald II, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 118.\nIn Emerald II, we also cited Crusius, where the supreme court responded to the State\u2019s claim that a mandatory reading of section 11.2(a) undermines the Act\u2019s goal of strict regulation. Observing \u201crevocation proceedings have, in fact, been initiated against\u201d Emerald, the supreme court added:\n\u201cThus, regardless of Emerald\u2019s eligibility for license renewal and relocation under section 11.2(a), if Emerald has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, it could lose its ri verb oat gambling license in accordance with the Act\u2019s provisions, as is the case with any other licensee.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Crusius, 216 Ill. 2d at 333.\nWe believe the court\u2019s use of the word \u201chas\u201d reflects its view that the then-pending revocation proceedings could apply to the newly issued license. We see no indication the court was thinking about future, postlicense misconduct. We see no intent to grant amnesty for prelicense behavior. Nor are we so inclined. Even if the supreme court\u2019s language is dictum, it is judicial dictum, which must receive dispositive weight in this court. People v. Williams, 204 Ill. 2d 191, 206-07, 788 N.E.2d 1126 (2003).\nWe reject Rosemont\u2019s contention that it is the \u201claw of the case\u201d that the Board may not apply the prior revocation order to the new license or that our opinion in Emerald II would be merely advisory if we failed to rule for the plaintiffs. The issue before us in Emerald II was whether section 11.2(a) required the Board to grant Emerald\u2019s application for renewal and relocation. Our decision was not contingent on a future outcome. See Shipp v. County of Kankakee, 345 Ill. App. 3d 250, 255, 802 N.E.2d 284 (2003) (if the harm claimed by a plaintiff is speculative or contingent, the claim is unripe and the court should not decide it).\nRevocation was not an issue before us then, and it is not before us now. The only issue is whether the trial court and the Board complied with our mandate. It did.\nWe directed the court to order the Board to issue a license that was to \u201cremain in effect for four years, subject to revocation proceedings.\u201d Emerald II, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 119.\nBoth the court and the Board followed our directions to the letter. We would have no reason to say \u201csubject to revocation proceedings\u201d unless we were referring to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. We had read Crusius. And we knew the revocation issue was being reviewed by the Fourth District Appellate Court.\nThe parties\u2019 citation to the legislative debates surrounding section 11.2 is not relevant to the issue of whether the court and Board followed our mandate. We are not interpreting any statutes in this case.\nNor are we persuaded by Rosemont\u2019s argument that section 7(g) of the Act allows a license holder to renew its license after it has been revoked. See 230 ILCS 10/7(g) (West 2004) (\u201cUpon the termination, expiration, or revocation of each of the first 10 licenses, which shall be issued for a 3 year period, all licenses are renewable annually ***\u201d). In the prior appeals, plaintiffs argued section 7(g) did not apply to them. We said in Emerald I that section 11.2(a) makes no reference to section 7(g), \u201ca seeming rebuttal to the Board\u2019s claim that the legislature could not have intended to disregard standards for renewal and relocation contained in other parts of the Act.\u201d Emerald I, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 36. Certainly, the plaintiffs benefitted from our holding that a mandatory reading of \u201cshall\u201d in section 11.2(a) created an exception to the license renewal requirements in section 7 of the act {Emerald I, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 35), as they benefitted from our direction in Emerald II to issue a prospective license. Emerald II, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 119. All that remained was for Emerald to win its revocation case, in the Fourth District or beyond.\nWe affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs\u2019 motion to compel compliance with our Emerald II mandate.\nWe also affirm the court\u2019s denial of the motion for a rule to show cause. The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find the Board in contempt. The Board followed the directions of the circuit court pursuant to our mandate.\nAffirmed.\nCAHILL, EJ., and GARCIA, J., concur.\nEmerald disputes the validity of the September 1999 date, contending its August 10, 1999, application is the appropriate point of reference under section 11.2.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert A. Clifford and Michael S. Krzak, both of Clifford Law Offices, EC., and J. Timothy Eaton, of Schopf & Weiss LLF\u00a1 both of Chicago, for appellant.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.", "Robert M. Stephenson, David B. Goroff, Michael S. Shapiro, David A. Moore, and Daniel M. Cordis, all of Foley & Lardner, of Chicago, for intervenor." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EMERALD CASINO, INC., f/k/a HP, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS GAMING BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees (The Village of Rosemont, Intervenor-Plaintiff).\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201407\u20140881\nOpinion filed November 26, 2007.\nRobert A. Clifford and Michael S. Krzak, both of Clifford Law Offices, EC., and J. Timothy Eaton, of Schopf & Weiss LLF\u00a1 both of Chicago, for appellant.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees.\nRobert M. Stephenson, David B. Goroff, Michael S. Shapiro, David A. Moore, and Daniel M. Cordis, all of Foley & Lardner, of Chicago, for intervenor." }, "file_name": "0930-01", "first_page_order": 946, "last_page_order": 953 }