# State v. Greenetrack, Inc.

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816640

## 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 Moore
- **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/4816640

## 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

MOORE, Chief Justice
(concurring in case no. 1101313, case no. 1110158, and case no. 1130598 and concurring in the result in case no. 1101384 and case no. 1110310).
In my view the property at issue in this case was lawfully seized under the authority of a valid warrant. Because relief under Rule 3.13, Ala. R.Crim. P. (“Unlawfully Seized Property”), is not available to seek return of lawfully seized property, I concur in the result in case no. 1101384 and case no. 1110310. 10
I concur fully that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant in case no. 1130598, and I concur to dismiss the petitions for the writ of mandamus in case no. 1101313 and case no. 1110158.
. I find the separation-of-powers discussion relating to Tyson v. Macon County Greyhound. Park, Inc., 43 So.3d 587 (Ala.2010), not germane. Because the Rule 3.13 proceedings and the separate forfeiture actions are both judicial proceedings, no issue of interference with executive-branch prerogatives is present in the Rule 3.13 cases.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816640. Public record. Not legal advice.