What action could the tourist take after being rejected from the casino?

The answer selected is not necessarily the most applicable option in this scenario. A more fitting approach would be to consider the available actions a tourist might pursue after being rejected from a casino.

Filing a claim in small claims court would be an appropriate step if the tourist believes they have a legitimate claim for damages due to wrongful exclusion from the casino. This avenue allows individuals to resolve disputes quickly and cost-effectively, particularly for smaller amounts of money.

Seeking a settlement out of court is also a viable option. This entails negotiating directly with the casino to reach an agreement without formal litigation, which can save time and resources. This step could be beneficial if the tourist prefers to avoid the potential delays associated with court proceedings.

Requesting compensation from the state is generally not applicable unless there is a specific statutory basis or claim rooted in state law that allows for compensation due to the actions of the casino.

Moving for a new trial focuses on judicial proceedings when seeking to challenge a verdict already reached, typically applied in civil or criminal cases following a trial outcome. Since the tourist was not involved in a trial regarding their rejection from the casino, this option does not apply in this context. Choosing an option that aligns with the tourist’s situation regarding wrongful exclusion would be more appropriate for resolving