Opinion

Harrah's Bossier City Investment Co. v. Bridges

2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 1727
22 So. 3d 921
2009 La. App. LEXIS 1450

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed: Jul 27, 2009
Status: Published
Author: Guidry
On the bench: Guidry, Pettigrew, McDonald, Hughes, Welch
Cited by: 2 cases

The opinion

GUIDRY, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

hi concur with the result reached by the majority relative to Harrah’s being cov *934 ered by an alternative taxing scheme under La. R.S. 4:168 and La. R.S. 4:227 only as it relates to its pari-mutuel operations. However, I dissent to the extent that the majority extends the application of La. R.S. 4:168 and La. R.S. 4:227 to Harrah’s slot machine operations, which were authorized long after the enactment of La. R.S. 4:168 and La. R.S. 4:227 and for which none of the fees, commissions, and taxes provided for in La. R.S. 4:168 and La. R.S. 4:227 are applicable.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.