445 A.2d 370 (N.J. 1982)
Uston v. Resorts International is a pivotal case in property law that addresses the limitations of the right of exclusion, particularly in the context of private property and public access.
Does a privately owned casino have the right to exclude a patron based solely on their gambling strategy when the casino operates as a public accommodation?
The legal principle established in Uston v. Resorts International revolves around the limitations of the right of exclusion in property law. While property owners generally possess the right to control access to their property, this right is subject to limitations, particularly when the property serves a public function. The court recognized that casinos, as establishments that cater to the public, must adhere to certain standards of access and cannot arbitrarily exclude individuals without just cause. This principle is rooted in the idea that public accommodations must provide equal access to all individuals, barring any legitimate reasons for exclusion.
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that Resorts International could not exclude Uston from the casino based solely on his card counting strategy. The court reasoned that while property owners have the right to exclude individuals, this right is limited when the property serves a public function, such as a casino. The court emphasized that Uston's method of play did not violate any laws or regulations and that the casino's exclusion of him was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Uston v. Resorts International is a landmark case that has had a lasting impact on property law and the regulation of public accommodations. The decision established important precedents regarding the limitations of the right of exclusion, particularly in contexts where private property serves a public function. This case has been cited in subsequent legal disputes involving access to public accommodations, reinforcing the principle that property owners must justify exclusionary practices based on legitimate grounds rather than arbitrary or discriminatory reasons.