the commission to make the lottery program accessible. Winborne v. Va. Lottery, 278 Va. 142, 677 S.E.2d 304, 307-08 (2009); Paxton v. State Dep’t of Tax & Revenue, 192 W.Va. 213, 451 S.E.2d 779, 784-85 (1994). Thus, even though the inaccessible lottery agents were private parties, the commission could be held liable under the ADA because it ran a lottery program that was inaccessible as a whole. Winbome, 677 S.E.2d at 307-08; Paxton, 451 S.E.2d at 785. But there are two important differences between these lottery cases and this case. First, there, it was clear that the lottery commissions were running lotteries, not just licensing lottery agents. After all, the lottery commissions themselves conducted the lotteries; the agents that so socs., 840 F.Supp. 1328, 1344 (N.D.Cal.1993) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of such a contractual or
holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists holding that the fact that the city had delegated its municipal engineering functions to a private entity was dispositive in establishing that documents generated by the private entity were public records holding that the crucial distinction that rendered the public entity liable for a private actors inaccessibility was that the public entity had contracted with the private actor for it to provide aid benefits or services to beneficiaries of the public entitys redevelopment program holding that land dedicated for a public street may not be leased to a private entity for private use