# State v. Greenetrack, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Alabama · April 1, 2014 · 154 So. 3d 940

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816639

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re STATE of Alabama v. GREENETRACK, INC.). State of Alabama v. Greenetrack, Inc. Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re State of Alabama v. Frontier Bingo, Inc., and Nova Gaming, LLC). State of Alabama v. Frontier Bingo, Inc., and Nova Gaming, LLC. Ex parte State of Alabama
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 1, 2014
- **Citations:** 154 So. 3d 940; 2014 WL 1283084
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bryan
- **Judges:** Avise, Bolin, Bryan, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816639

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a trial court's orders that "purported to adjudicate all issues in [the] matters to final determination" were "final judgments subject to appeal, not interlocutory orders subject to review by a petition for a writ of mandamus"
- explaining that a statutory allowance for "an 'electronic marking machine' [does not] obviate[ ] all the other criteria" of the game commonly and traditionally known as bingo
- holding that the orders at issue ’’amount[ed] to final judgments subject to appeal, not interlocutory orders subject to review by a petition for a writ of mandamus”

## Opinion text

BRYAN, Justice
(concurring in case no. 1101313, case no. 1110158, and case no. 1130598 and concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result in case no. 1101384 and case no. 1110310).
I concur in all aspects of the main opinion, except the discussion of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under Rule 3.13, Ala. R.Crim. P. As to that discussion, I agree with the ultimate holding — that this Court has appellate jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816639. Public record. Not legal advice.