“Slots” Litigation in MD – E-Discovery LLC

Decision of Court of Appeals of Maryland in Doe v. Alternative Medicine Maryland, LLC

Michael Berman — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:56:24 +0000

After issuing a bypass writ or certiorari and hearing oral argument, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued its decision in Doe v Alternative Medicine Maryland LLC, __ Md.__, 2017 WL 3668100 (2017).

Berman Prevails On Commercial Free Speech Issue

Michael Berman — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:19:17 +0000

The Attorney General of Maryland issued a formal opinion agreeing with commercial free speech arguments presented by Berman and RLLS in a matter pending before the Maryland Lottery Commission. “Referenda – First Amendment – Gaming – Slot Machines – Whether State Lottery Commission May Limit Licensee’s Participation in Referendum Related to Another Potential Licensee,” 95 Op.A.G. 177 (Oct. 5, 2010).

The Attorney General opined that a general power to license and regulate a business does not include authority to regulate political speech through licensing actions. He wrote: “It has long been established that a corporation has a First Amendment right to fund a campaign supporting or opposing a referendum.”

State’s top court rules that referendum on Arundel Mills slots is legal

Michael Berman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:51:33 +0000

The Baltimore Sun reported on the arguments before the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the State’s highest Court, on the “slots” referendum. “Michael D. Berman, an attorney for the Maryland Jockey Club and the citizens group Citizens Against Slots at the Mall, argued before the court Tuesday morning that the right to referendum was a ‘critical check and balance’ and that the county zoning bill was ‘not an appropriation.’ . . . ‘Invalidating the people’s right to referendum would only serve to erode confidence in the government,’ Berman said.”

“Slots” Referendum Argument in Maryland Court of Appeals

Michael Berman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:08:41 +0000

WBAL TV reported that during oral argument in the State’s highest court, “Michael Berman, an attorney for a group that opposes putting the casino near Arundel Mills Mall, said the framework of the constitutional amendment approved by Maryland voters in 2008 imposed the possibility of local discretion on where a casino could be located. He also said the case has ramifications beyond simply whether the casino can be built near the mall. ‘The possibilities are endless, and the implications for home rule are considerable,’ Berman said.”

Webcast: Berman’s Oral Argument in Court of Appeals of Maryland

Michael Berman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:36:48 +0000

This is a link to a webcast of Berman’s July 20, 2010, oral argument in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court issued an order that same day ruling in favor of the appellants represented by Mr. Berman. Citizens Against Slots at the Mall, et al. v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC, No. 154 (Sept. Term 2009).

Arundel Slots Trial Ends

Michael Berman — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 01:00:26 +0000

The Baltimore Sun reported on the seven-day hearing on the “slots” referendum in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, reporting that: “Michael Berman, an attorney for the community group, said the board [of elections] used ‘evenhanded, reasonable decision-making’ and that further examination of the carefully completed process would ‘disenfranchise voters based on wholly subjective guesswork.'”

Berman’s Objections to Proffered Evidence Sustained

Michael Berman — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:51:21 +0000

On May 26, 2010, the Maryland Daily Record reported that Judge “Silkworth granted lawyer Michael Berman’s objections to both types of testimony, saying the line of questioning was beyond the scope of his inquiry into Cordish’s legal challenge to the Anne Arundel County Board of Elections’ approval of the petition drive. [Judge] Silkworth’s twin rulings marked the latest defeats in Cordish subsidiary PPE Casino Resorts Maryland’s legal battle against casino opponents, including the jockey club.”

Berman Rebuts Opponent’s Argument

Michael Berman — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:20:10 +0000

When opponents of the referendum petition argued that CASM is a “non-existent entity” created by the jockey club to disguise its involvement in the petition drive, they said: “It [CASM] was a deception to the prospective signers.”

Michael Berman, arguing for CASM and others, responded: “I am here representing the non-existent entity CASM.” After the May 25, 2010, argument, the matter was ultimately heard by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which ruled in favor of CASM.

Trial Court Argument on Slots Referendum

Michael Berman — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:13:49 +0000

On April 16, the Annapolis Capital reported that Michael D. Berman argued in favor of a referendum petition and stated that the challenge “seeks to chill and taint the ongoing election campaign,’ said attorney Michael Berman, who represents Citizens Against Slots at The Mall, one of the groups formed to push the petition drive. ‘The citizens are now campaigning under the taint of fraud.'” The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the referendum on July 20, 2010.