Opinion ID: 1150826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Protected class.

Text: Appellant contends that the Gaming Control Act, NRS Chapter 463, was not enacted for the special benefit of gaming entities. Appellant cites the case of Dunn v. Nevada Tax Commission, 67 Nev. 173, 216 P.2d 985 (1950), which states: The contention that the purpose of the [gaming licensing] act is to favor or benefit the race track books and not `for the protection of the public and in the public interest' as recited in section 2 of the act is not tenable. Id. at 184, 216 P.2d at 991. We conclude that Dunn is inapplicable to the present case. In Dunn, the issue was whether a statute (1949 Nev. Stats. ch. 152) providing for the licensing of the supplying and dissemination of horse racing information was constitutional. Id. at 175-176, 216 P.2d at 997. [3] In contrast, the present issue is whether gaming entities are the intended beneficiaries of statutes requiring the fair and equitable dissemination of gaming information. See NRS 463.440(1)(a); see also NRS 463.460. While the overarching purpose behind the Gaming Control Act is to protect the public, gaming entities are the primary beneficiaries of NRS 463.440(1)(a) and NRS 463.460. NRS 463.440(1)(a) specifically states that it is the public policy of the State that: All persons licensed to operate and maintain a sports pool or race book are entitled to receive on a fair and equitable basis all information concerning such racing that is being disseminated into and within this state.