Attorney Sonny Reagan's Legal Cases

Gaming

State v. $93, 917.50 and 376 Gambling Devices, 1130437

Dec 19, 2014

OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded

State police and the Alabama Attorney General's Office, represented by attorney Reagan, seized several hundred illegal slot machines and cash proceeds from illegal gambling from a casino and filed a fo ... rfeiture case in the trial court to have the items determined illegal and ordered destroyed. The casino argued the forfeiture case filed by the state was flawed because the electronic signature of the prosecutor was improperly typed. The trial court ordered the case dismissed and the state appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court order dismissing the underlying forfeiture action, filed by state pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-12-30, seeking condemnation of certain gaming devices, currency, and other property, was reversed because Rule 11(a) does not require the striking of those petitions in the case. As a result the state continued to pursue the case in the trial court.

Gaming

H.E.D.A.. v. State, 168 So.3d 4 (Ala. 2014)

Nov 21, 2014

OUTCOME: Affirmed

This was the first case to be tried to a final verdict and appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court involving the electronic bingo controversy and whether a so-called electronic bingo machine is an illega ... l slot machine under Alabama law. The State of Alabama was represented by attorney Reagan. The State won the case at trial and the trial judge ruled the seized machines were illegal slot machines under Alabama law. The Center Stage Casino appealed the decision to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly ruled that the electronic gaming devices at the Center Stage Casino did not play the game "commonly or traditionally known as bingo;" the machines were illegal slot machines under Alabama law; and trial court did not err in ordering the forfeiture of the items seized by the State from the casino..

Litigation

Ex parte Rich, 80 So.3d 219 (Ala. 2011)

Mar 18, 2011

OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded

Several hundred electronic-bingo machines were brought to Montgomery County to be temporarily stored in a warehouse after being seized by state police in a Mobile County casino. The casino and slot mac ... hine owners filed a separate action against the State in Montgomery County and relied on the dual-litigation statute and the compulsory-counterclaim rule to have trial court order the machines returned to the casino. The State, represented by attorney Reagan, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the Court to reverse the lower court's decision and allow the quasi-criminal forfeiture proceeding to proceed in Mobile County. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State.

Constitutional

Surles v. City of Ashville, 68 So. 3d 89 (Ala. 2011)

Jan 14, 2011

OUTCOME: Dismissed

The City of Ashville passed a local rule that legalized slot machine type gambling. The Sheriff challenged the local rule claiming that slot machines could not be used to play bingo under state law. Th ... e Governor, represented by attorney Reagan, intervened in the case and appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court arguing that the trial court improperly considered a civil lawsuit to resolve a dispute that should be decided in a criminal proceeding or through a quasi-criminal forfeiture proceeding. The Supreme Court held that a complaint seeking a judgment declaring that any future participant playing or in possession of electronic or video bingo machines authorized by the ordinance would be in compliance with Alabama law was not a justiciable controversy, therefore siding with the Governor and Sheriff.

Constitutional

Riley v. Cornerstone, 57 So.3d 704 (Ala. 2010)

May 21, 2010

OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded

This was a landmark case that settled a legal dispute between the Governor of Alabama, represented by attorney Reagan, and the Alabama Attorney General and determined which official is ultimately in ch ... arge of litigation where the State of Alabama is a party. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Governor and held that the common-law powers that had been prescribed to the Attorney General by the legislature did not include the right to countermand the Governor where he as chief magistrate was acting within the constitutional bounds of the Governor's authority. As a result, the power and authority of the Governor over the Attorney General was clearly established by the state's highest court and changed the dynamics of litigation where the Governor and the Attorney General disagree over questions of law and law enforcement.

Gaming

Barber v. Cornerstone, 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009)

Nov 13, 2009

OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded

State police, represented by attorney Reagan, seized 105 electronic bingo machines at the White Hall Casino claiming the machines were illegal slot machines under Alabama law. The trial judge issued an ... order to return the gambling machines to the casino and the State appealed. The AL Supreme Court established six prong test to determine whether the games were commonly and traditionally known as bingo. The "Cornerstone" test is now the standard used to determine whether a bingo game is legal under Alabama law..

Constitutional

Riley v. Hughes, 17 So.3d 643 (Ala. 2009)

Feb 06, 2009

OUTCOME: Vacated and Dismissed

The Governor of Alabama, represented by attorney Reagan, appointed individuals to the Alabama A & M University Board of Trustees A group of citizens challenged the Governor's appointment of certain mem ... bers of the college board of trustees. The Governor argued that his authority to appoint the trustees could not be undermined by the circuit court. The trial court disagreed and the Governor appealed the decision to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Governor and held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Governor's appointments.

Sonny Reagan's Legal Cases (7)

State v. $93, 917.50 and 376 Gambling Devices, 1130437

H.E.D.A.. v. State, 168 So.3d 4 (Ala. 2014)

Ex parte Rich, 80 So.3d 219 (Ala. 2011)

Surles v. City of Ashville, 68 So. 3d 89 (Ala. 2011)

Riley v. Cornerstone, 57 So.3d 704 (Ala. 2010)

Barber v. Cornerstone, 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009)

Riley v. Hughes, 17 So.3d 643 (Ala. 2009)