Henderson tavern battle goes to Supreme Court

Thursday, June 3, 1999 | 10:21 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The city of Henderson and owners of a tavern named Thirstbusters have asked the Nevada Supreme Court for a rehearing on its April decision in the dispute over expanding slot machines in the bar.

The court said the City Council must reconsider its decision not to allow the business, owned by Ronald Coury and Daniel Hughes, to expand its 40 slot machines to compete with other area taverns with more gaming.

Norman Kirshman, attorney for Henderson, said the court overlooked and misunderstood two material facts upon which it based its decision. Attorney Todd Touton, representing Coury and Hughes, asked the court to change its ruling on the special-use permit issue.

Their petitions for rehearing were filed last month and will be decided by the court later.

Kirshman said the court was in error when it found there was a geographical limit on gaming in Henderson when the council reached a 1992 settlement with Thirstbusters to allow it to expand its slots from 15 to 40. There was no citywide restriction on gaming at the time, Kirshman said.

The court ruled the application of Thirstbusters must be reconsidered because there has been a change in circumstances and the 40-slot machine limitation may be an "inequitable and oppressive restriction" on the owners' use of their property.

Kirshman said the decision by the court "overlooks the material fact in concluding the original purpose of the 40-machine restriction was to limit gaming" in the city. He said the court was wrong in believing the settlement resulted in a limit on gaming.

Touton said the city wrongly imposed a restriction on the special-use permit for 40 slot machines based on the character of the owners, Coury and Hughes.

Touton said that restriction on the special-use permit should be stricken. A special-use permit can be limited, Touton said but it can't be restricted the way Henderson did. "The city of Henderson limited the property to 40 slot machines, not based on the character of the property but based upon who owned it," he said.

The battle between Henderson and the owners has been going on since 1991. An out-of-court settlement was reached in 1992 to allow Coury and Hughes to have 40 slot machines if they agreed never to seek a further increase as long as they owned the bar.

From June 1992 through December 1995, the City Council approved at least 18 applications for limited or more extensive gaming licenses for competing businesses in the same area as Thirstbusters. Coury and Hughes went back to the council again to void the agreement, seeking as many as 199 slots.

The city refused and the owners returned to court to invalidate the settlement. District Judge Joseph Bonaventure ordered the city to put the issue on the council agenda. The council again refused to consider the application. The case bounced back into court.

Bonaventure ruled for the city on the request for the increased license. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court, which held the city had the right to impose restrictions on the license.

But the court said conditions have changed in Henderson and these must be considered.

The unanimous decision directed Bonaventure to send the issue to the City Council, which must find whether the "changed conditions, if any, have thwarted the original purpose of the 40-machine restriction -- to limit gaming in the general area.

"If the geographical limitation on gaming is no longer in effect, the application for removal of the restriction in the agreement must be granted," the court said.