HIALEAH, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, FLORIDA PARI-MUTUEL COMMISSION, AND GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there were no strong reasons to depart from the rule of rotation for awarding racing dates, and the Pari-Mutuel Commission's order was reversed.
Hialeah Race Course sought review of a final decision by the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission regarding the award of middle racing dates. The Commission…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of mandamus is treated as one seeking review, Section 120.-68(1), Florida Statutes (1981), of the final decision of the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c).
In our view, based upon the briefs and oral presentations before us, and as specifically reflected by the findings and conclusions contained in the order under review, there has been no demonstration of the “strong and compelling reasons” required to justify a departure from the rule of rotation which we deem to remain a part of the pertinent law of Florida. Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Board of Business Regulation, 270 So. 2d 366, 372 (Fla.1972) (Ervin, J., specially concurring); Gulfstream Park Racing Assn., Inc. v. Board of Business Regulation, 318 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Gulfstream Park Racing Assn., Inc. v. Division of Pari Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, 404 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We therefore reverse the order and direct the Commission to issue a license to Hialeah to operate the middle racing dates in question. § 120.68(13)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1981); Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Board of Business Regulation, supra, at 270 So. 2d 371.
Pursuant to Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon questions of great public importance concerning the standards applicable to the award of racing dates in Florida, including the viability and application of the “rotation rule” in making that determination.
No motion for rehearing will be considered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Hialeah, Inc., 453 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1984)…t public importance concerning the standards applicable to the award of racing dates in Florida, including the viability and application of the ‘rotation rule’ in making that determination.” Hialeah, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, [*813] 442 So. 2d 1120, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Although the issue of which track should have been awarded the 1983-84 middle racing dates is now moot, we have granted the petition for review in order to answer the cer…
-
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Hialeah, Inc., 495 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission (the Commission) which awarded the middle dates to Gulfstream. This court overturned the Commission’s order and ordered the Commission to award the middle dates to Hialeah. Hialeah v. Department of Business Regulation, 442 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Additionally, in Hialeah, we certified the question of applicable standards in determining the proper allocation of racing dates to the Florida supreme court. In Gulfstream Racing Park Association v. Hialeah, Inc., 453 So. 2d 812…
Authorities Cited
- Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 270 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1972)
- Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 318 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Division OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 404 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)