To Los Angeles attorney Richard I. Fine, who represented Fleeger in federal court, Pro's decision was about as well reasoned as a system for picking keno winners. He looked at a Louisiana state case and the Nevada Commercial Code, but he didn't cite any federal case law determining whether the marker is a check. In contrast, in the federal system you have several cases which say a marker is not a check. Unfortunately for Fleeger, none of the aforementioned federal cases from New Jersey, Arkansas and elsewhere are binding on Nevada judges. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressly adopted Pro's reasoning when it decided the Nguyen case, seemingly driving another nail into the coffin of the argument that markers are not checks.
Success breeds success, just like failure breeds failure.
Langford, who serves as Fine's co-counsel on the Fleeger case, has a different view, especially since Pro's ruling is currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. No, I am not. But let's see what a San Francisco court says. If the 9th Circuit reverses Pro's ruling in Fleeger, it could reopen the Nguyen litigation and jeopardize the practice of filing criminal charges against those who default on their markers. On the other hand, if the duo roll craps before the court of appeal, their last recourse will be to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, something the high court is doing less and less frequently in recent years.