The Las Vegas Review-Journalreported late last week that the Nevada Supreme Court has denied Luciaetta Ivey‘s petition to overturn a previous court ruling allowing a judge to hear her divorce case against ex-husband Phil Ivey (pictured) despite connections between the poker legend and the judge.

Phil and Luciaetta were married seven years before their divorce, which became official when Judge Bill Gonzalez entered the divorce decree on December 29, 2009. As part of the decree, Phil was to pay his ex $180,000 per month as alimony from the money he made as part owner and sponsored pro of Full Tilt Poker. Those payments stopped after Black Friday, which was permitted by the divorce agreement.

After the divorce, Gonzalez ran for reelection and received a total of $71,240 in cash contributions for his campaign and another $14,216.65 worth of “in-kind” contributions. Phil Ivey contributed $5,000, his lawyer David Chesnoff chipped in $1,000 plus another $3,543.54 from a fundraiser, and Chesnoff’s wife donated $2,500.

Chesnoff’s law partner donated $1,000, while the firm of John Spilotro, the attorney Phil hired to represent his ex-wife, contributed $500. The $10,000 in cash donations made up about 14% of the total cash contributions to Gonzalez’s campaign. All of the donations were made in 2010.

In May 2011, the month after Black Friday, Luciaetta filed a motion to reopen discovery following a dispute over Phil’s alimony payments. Gonzalez was assigned to hear the motion, but Luciaetta filed an affidavit requesting that the judge recuse himself because of the campaign contributions made by Phil and others involved on his side of the divorce case. Judge Jennifer Togliattidetermined that there was nothing in either Nevada or Federal law that would require Gonzalez’s recusal and therefore denied the motion.

Luciaetta then petitioned the State Supreme Court, looking to have Togliatti’s decision overturned and Gonzalez removed from the case.

Last Thursday, the Nevada Supreme Court denied Luciaetta’s petition, writing, “We conclude that the campaign contributions at issue here were not significant enough to ‘raise a reasonable question’ as to Judge Gonzalez’s impartiality… Furthermore, the contributions occurred after Phillip and Luciaetta filed the joint petition for divorce and Judge Gonzalez entered the divorce decree. Thus, the campaign contributions are not exceptional.”

Luciaetta’s attorney, Bruce Shapiro, disagreed with the decision, telling the Las Vegas newspaper that Nevadans are going to look at this as just another instance of those with the resources to make hefty campaign contributions being able to get what they want. “The whole point is what does it look like. In any other context, that would look like a bribe,” he said.

Justice Nancy Saitta concurred with the decision, but expressed a concern similar to Shapiro’s, writing, “Although I joined my colleagues in adopting the revisions to the code, the instant case reveals that it is perhaps time to revisit the current rules and their application to real cases in controversy. In our current political landscape, we must be cognizant of the potential appearance of impropriety arising from the type of campaign contributions made in this case – numerous contributions within the statutory limit made by a group of individuals who all have interests in a single case.”

She added that Gonzalez should have known that “future matters” in the divorce case could have come before him and implied that he probably should have not accepted the contributions. She blamed Nevada law more than Gonzalez, however, and expressed her desire for the law to be reevaluated.

Want the latest poker headlines and interviews? Follow PocketFives on Twitterand Like PocketFives on Facebook. You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.