Multi-game betting for Delaware allowed by Judge

Following last week's ruling, the court provides a written opinion on what Delaware can and cannot do.

Last week's surprise ruling in favour of the major US sports leagues opposed to Delaware's sportsbetting plans (see previous InfoPowa reports) has been followed by extensive publicity expanding on the judgement. The coverage is based on the court's formal order and opinion issued Monday.

The order comes a day before the start of Delaware's entry into the sportsbetting sector and clarifies that point-spread bets on individual games in all major sports violated federal law. However, the opinion allows the state to offer parlay bets, which depend on the outcome of several matches, on National League Football games.

The court opinion agreed with the sports leagues that Delaware was generally limited to what it offered in 1976, when it allowed gamblers to bet on winners of several NFL games.

Any effort by Delaware to allow wagering on athletic contests involving sports beyond the NFL would violate federal law, Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote.

"Delaware may, however, institute multi-game (parlay) betting on at least three NFL games, because such betting is consistent with the scheme to the extent it was conducted in 1976," he added in his written opinion.

The state had planned to offer sports betting from three racetrack casinos, and it expected to benefit from added tourism.

"While we are disappointed the decision does not provide the flexibility we had hoped for, Delaware is still the only state east of the Rocky Mountains that can offer a legal sports lottery on NFL football," Delaware Governor Jack Markell said in a statement.

“We continue to believe this is an opportunity to create jobs and generate revenue to help us keep teachers in the classroom, police on the street and maintain other core commitments of state government.

"The state’s attorneys are reviewing today’s written opinion from the Court of Appeals and we will be discussing our legal options with them."

The case is In re Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al v. Jack Markell, et al, U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-3297.
  • Bad Credit Unsecured Loans get loans even with poor records [url= ]identity theft kroll [/url] [url= ]identity theft 911 service [/url] If you do not want to upload your own personal photo, many credit companies have categories of images and photos you can select from to have printed on your personalized card. These images are typically free and are available to anyone who takes out a line of credit account from the companies that offer these custom features. The categories of images you will typically have access from include hobbies, games, food, animals, occupations, floral, holidays, landscape, and abstract art. How is this OK? We depended on our financial institutions we trusted our financial institutions; we had every intent of paying back our debt. Those who didn't have the intent of paying their debt back should be penalized for it. But those like myself who have paid on time and played by these so-called rules set up for us, should not be penalized. We trusted these financial institutions and they failed us. Now we don't trust you. And I challenge my readers to stop. Breathe and fight like hell. This is our money they are taking. The Credit Card Act is a step in the right direction however; many of us have lost so much already.

Join today and start earning rewards

You will immediately get full access to our online casino forum/chat plus receive our newsletter with news & exclusive bonuses every month.
S logo

Report to moderator

Use this function to inform the moderators and administrator of an abusive or wrongly posted message.

Please note that your email address will be revealed to the moderators if you use this

Select Language
Search Results