South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDOR vs. Michael W. Mims, d/b/a Palmetto Games, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondents:
Michael W. Mims, d/b/a Palmetto Games, Hair Force of Columbia, Inc., d/b/a Lady Luck Video Parlor, and Kenneth J. King d/b/a Columbia Backgammon Club
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0183-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

These matters come before me on the citations issued by the Department of Revenue and Taxation against respondents for violation of the South Carolina Video Game Machines Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2770, et seq. Respondents are cited for having more than eight machines licensed under the

This matter comes before me on the citation issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation against the respondents for violation of the Video Game Machines Act [S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2770 - 3070 (Supp. 1994)]. Respondents were cited for offering inducements, and for advertising for the playing of machines. A hearing was scheduled for September 13, 1995. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement resolving the matter, and that agreement is incorporated into this Order.

The agreement between the parties is as follows:

1. The Respondent has removed the term "casino" the front window of its business. Respondent further agrees to cease and desist from using the term "casino" in the window of its business. Respondent has ceased redeeming its business cards for cash, and further agrees to cease and desist from that practice.

2. The Respondent agrees to pay a find of $500.00 for the advertising violation to the Petitioner by October 13, 1995.

3. Respondents agree to pay a fine of $500 for the inducement violation to Petitioner by October 13, 1995.

4. In consideration of the above, and pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-320(3) (Supp. 1994) Petitioner agrees not to seek the revocation of the licenses of the machines located in the subject structure for the particular violations cited in this action.

5. This settlement is deemed and found to be a compromise of a settled and disputed claim, and is not deemed or found to be a violation of the Video Game Machines Act.

6. Nothing in this settlement Order shall be construed to allow the continued operation of machines in a county that voted against the continued operation of such machines in the recent public referendum.

I find the above settlement to be fair and equitable, approve such settlement, and hereby Order its adoption.

WE SO CONSENT:

By: _________________________________

Nicholas P. Sipe, Chief Counsel for

Regulatory Litigation

Attorney for Petitioner

By: _______________________________

David Belding, Esq.

Attorney for Respondent

IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

September 13, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 South Carolina Administrative Law Court