690 (2021)Ĭourt concluded that the 2019 rules permitted a Massachusetts casino to pay odds of six to five to a player who was dealt a winning blackjack hand, while not otherwise adhering to the requirements for the '6 to 5 blackjack variation' that were articulated in those rules, including the layouts of the blackjack tables.
In an action brought by a Connecticut bank against Massachusetts residents, seeking payment of $5,500 borrowed in New Jersey from an automatic teller machine with a credit card, the judge incorrectly applied the law of New Jersey in granting summary judgment to the bank, where the credit agreement expressly stated that the law of Connecticut governed the use of the credit card and account, and where New Jersey, under its choice-of-law rules, would have looked to the law chosen by the parties.ĭeCosmo v. 'The District Court and Appellate Division judges were correct in concluding that the Gaming Disputes Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the action between the plaintiffs and the casino.'Ĭonnecticut National Bank of Hartford v.
