{ "id": 1563582, "name": "INFINITY GROUP, INC.; New Mexico Amateur Hockey Association; Scholastic, Inc.; New Era Education, Inc.; Eugene P. Long, Disabled American Veterans Chapter 32; Kiddie Kollege of Albuquerque, Inc.; The Albuquerque Sertoma Club, Inc.; Disabled American Veterans, Department of New Mexico; Sandia Mountain Lions Club; American Legion Post 122; Family Enrichment Center; Rio Grande Wrestling Club, Inc.; Albuquerque Speech & Hearing; Democratic Party of Bernalillo County; Telephone Pioneers of America; and Quantum Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jerry MANZAGOL, Superintendent, Regulation and Licensing Department of the State of New Mexico, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Infinity Group, Inc. v. Manzagol", "decision_date": "1994-09-13", "docket_number": "No. 14929", "first_page": "632", "last_page": "636", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 N.M. 632" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "884 P.2d 523" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "117 N.M. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552649 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" }, { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708443 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75", "parenthetical": "persuasive weight will be given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but a reviewing court will overturn an agency's incorrect interpretation" }, { "page": "1320", "parenthetical": "persuasive weight will be given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but a reviewing court will overturn an agency's incorrect interpretation" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 L.Ed.2d 836", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 S.Ct. 2709", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6525940 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/br/168/2709-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 F.3d 633", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3817152, 10527123 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us-app-dc/304/0335-01", "/f3d/14/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 Mont. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2676690 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1085" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/243/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Mont. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2505467 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[Poker] is a game played with playing cards, not with electronic images displayed on a screen.\"" }, { "page": "781", "parenthetical": "\"[Poker] is a game played with playing cards, not with electronic images displayed on a screen.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/208/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2703", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(7)(A)(i)", "parenthetical": "Supp.Pamp. 1994" }, { "page": "(7)(A)(i)(III)" }, { "page": "(7)(A)(i)", "parenthetical": "specifically addressing electronic and computerized bingo" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.M. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1563545 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "511-12" }, { "page": "552-57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/118/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "751 P.2d 700", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 N.M. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "746 P.2d 1120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 784", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708689 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "787" }, { "page": "1113" }, { "page": "788" }, { "page": "1114", "parenthetical": "Act may be changed through legislative therapy, not judicial surgery" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0784-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N.M. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1580208 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" }, { "page": "67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/102/0063-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 719, "char_count": 13110, "ocr_confidence": 0.7, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.361656776728032e-08, "percentile": 0.3900069077386365 }, "sha256": "cf22a052267c07dfd93fcdf588fa11c0f04c33a980ab6370d44418d05753225e", "simhash": "1:52b9df271b3bf6f0", "word_count": 2097 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:20.619055+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MINZNER, C.J., and APODACA, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "INFINITY GROUP, INC.; New Mexico Amateur Hockey Association; Scholastic, Inc.; New Era Education, Inc.; Eugene P. Long, Disabled American Veterans Chapter 32; Kiddie Kollege of Albuquerque, Inc.; The Albuquerque Sertoma Club, Inc.; Disabled American Veterans, Department of New Mexico; Sandia Mountain Lions Club; American Legion Post 122; Family Enrichment Center; Rio Grande Wrestling Club, Inc.; Albuquerque Speech & Hearing; Democratic Party of Bernalillo County; Telephone Pioneers of America; and Quantum Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jerry MANZAGOL, Superintendent, Regulation and Licensing Department of the State of New Mexico, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPICKARD, Judge.\nThis case presents the sole issue of whether machines that electronically simulate the game of pull tabs are allowed by the Bingo and Raffle Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 60-2B-1 to - 14 (Repl.Pamp.1991). We hold that the Act allows for the operation of such machines by those organizations covered by the Act.\nBACKGROUND\nThe purpose of the Act, which was passed in 1981, \u201cis to make lawful and regulate the conducting of certain games of chance by certain nonprofit organizations.\u201d Section 60-2B-2. A \u201cgame of chance\u201d is defined by the Act as\nthat specific kind of game of chance commonly known as bingo or lotto in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols selected at random and that specific kind of game of chance commonly known as raffles which is conducted by drawing for prizes or the allotment of prizes by chance or by the selling of shares, tickets or rights to participate in the game[.]\nSection 60-2B-3(M).\nThe State Regulation and Licensing Department is charged with the administration and regulation of the gaming activities allowed by the Act. Section 60-2B-4(A)(2). The Department has issued regulations pertaining to the operation of \u201cjar raffles\u201d and \u201cpull tabs\u201d by those organizations covered by the Act. As it is currently played in New Mexico, the game of pull tabs involves a player randomly drawing a paper card from a finite number of winning and losing cards and physically pulling away tabs affixed to the card, thereby revealing a combination of numbers or symbols with which the player may win certain cash prizes. The Department\u2019s regulations define \u201cjar raffles or pull tabs\u201d as \u201cprinted tickets that have a pull tab or seal to be opened by the purchaser where a winning combination is printed on each ticket or on a separate eard[.]\u201d Definition of Bingo & Raffle Terms, N.M. Regulation & Licensing Dep\u2019t Reg. 2B-S(J) (March 21, 1984).\nPlaintiff Infinity Group is a distributor of electronic gaming devices, Plaintiff Quantum Corporation is the landlord of buildings in which bingo and pull-tab games are conducted for non-profit organizations, and all other Plaintiffs are non-profit organizations licensed under the Act. Plaintiffs collectively wish to distribute, install, and operate three machines \u2014 the \u201cOasis,\u201d the \u201cVLC,\u201d and the \u201cWildfire\u201d \u2014 which electronically simulate the game of pull tabs. As with traditional paper pull tabs, Plaintiffs\u2019 machines randomly draw from a finite number of winning and losing chances, and gradually reveal the numbers or symbols which inform players whether they have won or lost. Unlike the traditional game, however, the \u201ctabs\u201d involved are not actual paper tabs but are instead simulations of paper tabs on a video screen. Consequently, Plaintiffs\u2019 machines do not allow for players physically to pull tabs off of a paper card but, again, simulate this action on the video screen instead. Plaintiffs\u2019 machines, therefore, do not conform to the Department\u2019s regulation defining permissible pull tabs as printed tickets to be opened by the purchaser.\nThe Department refused to allow Plaintiffs to install and operate the machines. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asking for a judgment declaring that their electronic pull-tab games are permissible under the Act. In response, the Department relied upon its regulations defining permissible pull tabs. Following a bench trial, the district court found that, although the machines are a computerized form of the pull-tab game as it is currently played in New Mexico, and although the machines offer greater protection from abuse than paper pull tabs, the additional resources required to regulate the machines and the \u201cglamorous and enticing\u201d qualities of the machines were factors that the Department could have properly considered in disallowing these machines. The district court also found that the machines did not exist at the time the Act was passed. The district court then concluded that electronic pull-tab games are not authorized by the Act and are against public policy, and it denied Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint. Plaintiffs appeal, and we reverse.\nDISCUSSION\nInitially, the Department argues that this case turns on whether the regulations it promulgated under the Act were intended to regulate electronic pull-tab games. This argument, however, misapprehends the issue. The question in this case is what games the legislature, not the Department, intended the Department to regulate. See Chalamidas v. Environmental Improvement Div., 102 N.M. 63, 66, 691 P.2d 64, 67 (Ct.App.1984) (agency cannot amend or enlarge its authority or modify the statutory provision creating it through rules and regulations).\nThe Department next argues that, notwithstanding its regulations allowing paper pull-tab games, the language of the Act does not in fact allow for any type of pull-tab game. It is true that the definition of \u201cgame of chance\u201d does not expressly include the game of pull tabs. However, we have previously construed the Act\u2019s definition of \u201craffles,\u201d which is a \u201cgame of chance,\u201d as an allotment of prizes by chance accomplished through a drawing. See State ex rel. Rodriguez v. American Legion Post No. 99, 106 N.M. 784, 787, 750 P.2d 1110, 1113 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 106 N.M. 588, 746 P.2d 1120 (1987), and cert. denied, 107 N.M. 16, 751 P.2d 700 (1988). The trial court\u2019s findings demonstrate that, as it is currently played in New Mexico, the game of pull tabs involves exactly these elements: 1) a finite number of prize cards; and 2) the distribution of those prize cards through a chance drawing by a player. Further, we note that elsewhere the Act specifically provides that \u201c[t]he aggregate amount of all prizes offered or given in all games played on a single occasion shall not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) which shall be exclusive of pull tabs.\u201d Section 60-2B-8(J) (emphasis added). In sum, the fact that pull-tab games as played in New Mexico fit the Act\u2019s definition of \u201craffles,\u201d combined with the fact that \u201cpull tabs\u201d are specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Act, leads us to believe that at least the paper pull-tab games that are presently played were contemplated by the legislature as a form of the game of chance of raffles allowed under the Act.\nThis brings us to the real question in this case, namely, whether electronic simulations of pull-tab games are allowed by the Act. There is nothing in the Act expressly prohibiting electronic versions of the game. Indeed, the Act refers to \u201cequipment\u201d to be used with respect to raffles, and defines such equipment as \u201cimplements, devices and machines designed, intended or used for the conduct of raffles and the identification of the winning number or unit and the ticket or other evidence or right to participate in raffles[.]\u201d Section 60-2B-3(L) (emphasis added). It is therefore apparent that mechanical devices are generally allowed under the Act.\nWe do note that the Act allows for that game of chance \u201ccommonly known as\u201d raffles, and it is true that electronic pull-tab simulation machines did not exist at the time the Act was passed in 1981. Thus, a possible argument favoring the Department\u2019s construction is that electronic pull-tab games could not have been games \u201ccommonly known\u201d at the time of enactment. We do not believe, however, that because only the paper form of the game was in existence in 1981, only the paper form is permissible under the Act. See generally State ex rel. Udall v. Public Employees Retirement Bd., 118 N.M. 507, 511-12, 882 P.2d 548, 552-57 (Ct.App.1994) [ (1994) ] To begin with, we do not believe that the phrase \u201ccommonly known as\u201d adds anything, including an element of ambiguity, to the Act, as that phrase appears to be boilerplate language regularly attached to statutes regulating games of chance. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2703(7)(A)(i) (Supp.Pamp. 1994); Colo.Rev.Stat. \u00a7 12-9-102(7) (1991); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. \u00a7 33:4861.4(A)(1) (West 1988); Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. \u00a7 432.102(1) (West Cum.Ann.Pocket Part 1994); N.J.Stat. Ann. \u00a7 5:8-25 (West 1988); N.Y.Gen.Mun. Law \u00a7 476(3) (Consol.1982); R.I.Gen.Laws \u00a7 11-19-30(e) (Cum.Supp.1993); S.C.Code Ann. \u00a7 12-21-3320(1) (Law.Co-op.Cum.Supp. 1993); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 179d, \u00a7 2(2) (West Supp.Pamp.1994); Wis.Stat. Ann. \u00a7 565.01(6m)(b)(9) (West Spec.Pamp. 1993). We are supported in our determination not to give persuasive weight to the phrase \u201ccommonly known as,\u201d inasmuch as the federal act, for example, groups \u201cpull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, [and] tips jars\u201d with games \u201ccommonly known as bingo.\u201d 25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2703(7)(A)(i)(III).\nFurther, we do not believe that paper cards or any skill that might be associated with paper cards were so important an element of the game in 1981 as to make Plaintiffs\u2019 machines violative of the Act. To be sure, actual cards handled by players, and skills associated therewith, may be an essential aspect of other games traditionally played with cards. A key element of the game of poker, for instance, is to hide one\u2019s cards from other players, and at least one court has stated that electronic simulations of poker are not in fact \u201cpoker\u201d as that game is historically understood. See Gallatin County v. D & R Music & Vending, Inc., 208 Mont. 138, 676 P.2d 779, 781 (1984) (\u201c[Poker] is a game played with playing cards, not with electronic images displayed on a screen.\u201d), superseded by statute as stated in MPH Co. v. Imagineering, Inc., 243 Mont. 342, 792 P.2d 1081, 1085 (1990). These elements of secrecy and skill, however, are lacking in pull tabs, and we do not believe that physically handling cards is a fundamental characteristic of the game. Consequently, Plaintiffs\u2019 electronic games, which replicate all of the essential elements of pull tabs, are pull tabs as that game was commonly known in 1981, and as such are allowed under the Act. Cf. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Comm\u2019n, 14 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C.Cir.) (under federal statute, electronic pull-tab machine was classified as an electronic facsimile of a game of chance because it \u201cexactly replicates the paper version of the game\u201d), cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2709, 129 L.Ed.2d 836 (1994).\nIn addition, we do not believe that the fact that the machines were found by the trial court to be \u201cglamorous and enticing\u201d means that they are prohibited by the Act. We interpret the Act to allow for that form of gambling commonly known as pull tabs, and a glamorous and enticing version of the game does not change its essential character. Finally, because we believe the Act unambiguously allows for the operation of Plaintiffs\u2019 electronic pull-tab games, we do not defer to the Department\u2019s regulations concerning the games. See New Mexico Pharmaceutical Ass\u2019n v. State, 106 N.M. 73, 75, 738 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1987) (persuasive weight will be given to an administrative agency\u2019s interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but a reviewing court will overturn an agency\u2019s incorrect interpretation).\nIn sum, we hold that the language of the Act as written allows for the operation of Plaintiffs\u2019 electronically simulated pull-tab games. If the legislature intended otherwise it can easily make that intent clear. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7\u00a7 2703(7)(A)(i) (specifically addressing electronic and computerized bingo); 2703(7)(B)(ii) (prohibiting certain \u201celectronic or electromechanical facsimiles\u201d); La.Rev. Stat-Ann. \u00a7 33:4861.17(F) (West Cum.Ann.Pocket Part 1994) (addressing electronic and computerized bingo); Me.Rev. Stat.Ann. tit. 17, \u00a7 330(1-A) (West Cum.Pocket Part 1993) (specifically addressing electronic video machines); see also TBCH, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 117 N.M. 569, 572, 874 P.2d 30, 33 (Ct.App.1994). Further, if the Department believes that the games should only be allowed in their paper form, it should take that argument to the legislature rather than to this Court. See American Legion, 106 N.M. at 788, 750 P.2d at 1114 (Act may be changed through legislative therapy, not judicial surgery).\nCONCLUSION\nThe judgment of the trial court is reversed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMINZNER, C.J., and APODACA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PICKARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John T. Porter, John T. Porter, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.", "Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Joel Cruz-Esparza, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for defendantappellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "884 P.2d 523\nINFINITY GROUP, INC.; New Mexico Amateur Hockey Association; Scholastic, Inc.; New Era Education, Inc.; Eugene P. Long, Disabled American Veterans Chapter 32; Kiddie Kollege of Albuquerque, Inc.; The Albuquerque Sertoma Club, Inc.; Disabled American Veterans, Department of New Mexico; Sandia Mountain Lions Club; American Legion Post 122; Family Enrichment Center; Rio Grande Wrestling Club, Inc.; Albuquerque Speech & Hearing; Democratic Party of Bernalillo County; Telephone Pioneers of America; and Quantum Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jerry MANZAGOL, Superintendent, Regulation and Licensing Department of the State of New Mexico, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 14929.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 13, 1994.\nCertiorari Denied Oct. 18, 1994.\nJohn T. Porter, John T. Porter, P.A., Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nTom Udall, Atty. Gen., Joel Cruz-Esparza, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for defendantappellee." }, "file_name": "0632-01", "first_page_order": 662, "last_page_order": 666 }