Opinion ID: 1264099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: advisory nature of opinions

Text: The federal district court asked this Court to answer two certified questions. The first question asked us to provide South Carolina's legal definition of a lottery. The second question asked us to apply that definition to the preliminary findings of fact in this case, i.e., to decide a factual question. In answering the second certified question, the majority advises the federal district court that under their definition of lottery, the video poker machines at issue here do not constitute lotteries under the South Carolina Constitution. Justice Burnett and I disagree with them. As noted by Chief Justice Finney and stated in the Order of Certification, no finding of this Court will be binding for entry of any permanent injunction or for the award of damages by the District Court. This Court may accept certified questions only to answer questions of law. Rule 228(a), SCACR. Thus, this Court's determination of whether Type II and Type III are in fact lotteries under our Constitution does not bind the federal district court. This determination is ultimately in the hands of the federal district court.