Case Name: CASINO ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, BALLY'S PARK PLACE, INC. T/A BALLY'S HOTEL CASINO, BALLY'S WILD WEST CASINO AND CLARIDGE CASINO; BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION T/A CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY; RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ, LLC T/A ATLANTIC CITY HILTON; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT; TRUMP MARINA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP MARINA HOTEL CASINO; TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO; ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC. T/A TROPICANA CASINO & RESORT; MARINA ASSOCIATES T/A HARRAH'S CASINO HOTEL; ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT, INC. T/A SHOWBOAT HOTEL CASINO; RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. T/A RESORTS ATLANTIC CITY; MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA; AND ACE GAMING, LLC D/B/A SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO; PLAINTIFFS-MOVANTS, v. CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JON CORZINE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 188 N.J. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: CASINO ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, BALLY’S PARK PLACE, INC. T/A BALLY'S HOTEL CASINO, BALLY’S WILD WEST CASINO AND CLARIDGE CASINO; BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION T/A CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY; RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ, LLC T/A ATLANTIC CITY HILTON; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT; TRUMP MARINA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP MARINA HOTEL CASINO; TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO; ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC. T/A TROPICANA CASINO & RESORT; MARINA ASSOCIATES T/A HARRAH’S CASINO HOTEL; ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT, INC. T/A SHOWBOAT HOTEL CASINO; RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. T/A RESORTS ATLANTIC CITY; MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA; AND ACE GAMING, LLC D/B/A SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO; PLAINTIFFS-MOVANTS, v. CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JON CORZINE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
904 A.2d 720
CASINO ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, BALLY’S PARK PLACE, INC. T/A BALLY'S HOTEL CASINO, BALLY’S WILD WEST CASINO AND CLARIDGE CASINO; BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION T/A CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY; RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ, LLC T/A ATLANTIC CITY HILTON; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT; TRUMP MARINA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP MARINA HOTEL CASINO; TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC T/A TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO; ADAMAR OF NEW JERSEY, INC. T/A TROPICANA CASINO & RESORT; MARINA ASSOCIATES T/A HARRAH’S CASINO HOTEL; ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT, INC. T/A SHOWBOAT HOTEL CASINO; RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. T/A RESORTS ATLANTIC CITY; MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA; AND ACE GAMING, LLC D/B/A SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO; PLAINTIFFS-MOVANTS, v. CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JON CORZINE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
July 3, 2006.

Opinion:
JAMES R. ZAZZALI, Associate Justice.
The within matter having been initiated by the Casino Association of New Jersey, which filed a motion with this Court pursuant to Rule 2:9-8 seeking emergent relief in the form of a single-Justice order for temporary restraints and an issuance of a writ in lieu of mandamus to respondents Governor Corzine and the Casino Control Commission;
And the movants having argued that the loss or suspension of the use of a casino license for even a short period of time would inflict devastating harm on the gaming industry, the State, and its citizens and would constitute an unconstitutional taking;
And respondents having answered that relief is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine and that movants are not otherwise entitled to the relief requested;
And the Appellate Division previously having denied relief to movants pending disposition of the appeal in that court;
And the Court having carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties;
And the Court having heard oral argument today, July 3, 2006, and having given due consideration to the arguments of counsel;
And the Court being satisfied that movants have not established sufficient grounds for relief;
It is on this 3rd day of July, 2006, ORDERED that the motion for emergent relief is DENIED.