STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. PENSACOLA GREYHOUND RACING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RELATOR,
v.
ROBERT C. LECHNER, LOUIS BANDEL, JAMES L. LEE, MARTIN SEGAL AND JACK FIVEASH, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA STATE RACING COMMISSION, 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 the statutory 50-mile radius prohibition applies to the physical locations of pari-mutuel facilities, not just concurrent operation times.
Relator sought mandamus to cancel a jai alai permit issued to an applicant. The applicant amended its proposed location to be within 50 miles of Relat…
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.
In original proceedings in mandamus before us the Relator, Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc., a Florida corporation, seeks to require the members of the Florida State Racing Commission, Respondents, to convene and cancel and annul a permit the Commission has issued to applicant West Coast Sports Association, Inc., to conduct jai alai at a fronton outside Pensacola in Escambia County. Alternative writ of mandamus was issued in the cause. Respondents have filed their return and a motion to quash said writ; Relator has moved for peremptory writ of mandamus, the return and motion to quash notwithstanding.
While there are other matters of serious import alleged by Relator, we think it will suffice to point out that the West Coast Sports Association, Inc., as Applicant, filed its application with the Racing Commission for a permit to operate a summer jai alai fronton at a specific location in Tampa, Florida. This application was scheduled for consideration by the Commission at its meeting of August 12, 1966. However, on August 10, 1966 Applicant filed an amendment wherein the location of the proposed fronton was changed from Tampa, Florida, to a location outside the city of Pensacola, in Escambia County, Florida. The Commission at its meeting on August 12, 1966 accepted the amendment and subsequently issued the permit. The Relator requested the Commission to rescind the permit, which request it heard officially and denied.
Relator specifically alleges:
“Section 551.12, Florida Statutes [F.S. A.], provides that in no event shall a jai-alai fronton permit or license be issued to conduct jai-alai and pari-mutuel pools at a location within fifty miles of another location where pari-mutuel pools are conducted under Chapter 550 or Chapter 551, Florida Statutes [F.S. A.]. Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc., is the owner and operator of a dog racing track in Escam-bia County where pari-mutuel pools are conducted under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], and the west 330 feet of the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 31 West in Es-cambia County, Florida,1 is within much less than fifty miles thereof. By reason of the foregoing the permit issued to West Coast is void, illegal and of no effect.”
Section 551.12, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], provides in part:
“ * * * provided, however, that in no event shall any jai alai fronton permit or license be issued to conduct jai alai and pari-mutuel pools at a location within fifty miles of another location where pari-mutuel pools are conducted under chapter 550 or 551, said distance to be measured on a straight line, said straight line shall be measured from property line to property line at the points nearest to each other, except this proviso shall not apply to frontons which have been issued valid permits and licenses to operate pri- or to June 30, 1959, and which are now in effect; * * This proviso was inserted into Section 551.12 by Ch. 59-453.
Chapter 550 referred to in the proviso is the statute governing and regulating dog and horse racing. Chapter 551 referred to in the proviso is the statute governing and regulating frontons.
The Respondents contend that the quoted proviso should not be construed to preclude *208the location of pari-mutuel pools of fron-tons in the physical plants of frontons within fifty miles of a dog or horse racing plant location or another fronton. They point out Applicant has indicated to the Commission it has no intention of requesting exhibition dates that would be concurrent with Relator’s dog racing dates. Therefore, Respondents contend that if Relator is not conducting dog racing at its physical plant location simultaneously with the conduct of jai alai at Applicant’s fron-ton location there would he no violation of the quoted proviso of F.S. Section 551.12, F.S.A.
We disagree with Respondents’ construction of the proviso. Its language plainly means that no jai alia fronton permit shall be issued to establish a new fron-ton at a new location within fifty miles of another location where pari-mutuel pools have been authorized under Chapter 550 or Chapter 551. The language in the proviso, at a “location where pari-mutuel pools are conducted under chapter 550 or 551,” does not mean that the mileage limitation only applies during the periods pari-mutuel pools are being conducted at existing dog or horse tracks or other frontons. The mileage limitation has reference to distances between locations of physical plants of racing establishments or frontons and not merely to distances between pari-mutuel pools when they are being conducted. The language referring to “pari-mutuel pools [that] are conducted under chapter 550 or 551” cannot be read out of context with the proviso as a whole which clearly relates to distances between locations.
Other contentions of Respondents that mandamus does not lie in the instant situation appear to be unfounded. See State ex rel. West Flagler Amusement Co. Inc. v. Rose et al., 122 Fla. 227, 165 So. 60; State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, Inc. v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317; State ex rel. Flagler County Kennel Club, Inc. v. Jones et al. (Fla.), 60 So.2d 760; Florida State Racing Commission et al. v. McLaughlin et al. (Fla.), 102 So.2d 574, and Solomon v. Sanitarians Registration Board (Fla.), 155 So.2d 353.
The motion for peremptory writ notwithstanding the return and motion to quash is granted.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Save Sand KEY, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 281 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…969). . See, history of §§ 60.06 and 823.05, F.S. 1973, F.S.A. . See, e. g., Dept. of Administration v. Horne (Fla.1972), 269 So. 2d 659, and cases cited therein. . See, e. g., State ex rel. Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Lechner (Fla.1967), 195 So. 2d 206. . See, e. g., Renard v. Dade County (Fla.1972), 261 So. 2d 832, and cases cited therein. . See, e. g., Boucher v. Novotny (Fla.1958), 102 So. 2d 132; O’Dell v. Walsh (Fla.1955), 81 So. 2d 554; Henry L. Doherty & Co., Inc., v. Joachim (1941), 146…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Inv. Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. of the State of Fla., 227 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1969)…iscretionary order of the Division of pari-mutuel wagering setting racing dates. In the situation here mandamus is an appropriate remedy available to petitioner. See State of Florida ex rel. Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Lechner et al., Fla., 195 So. 2d 206, and related cases. This Court has jurisdiction under Fla. Const, art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. Hollywood Kennel Club, having acquired valuable property rights under the orders by the State Racing Commission of August 14, 1969, which rights were directly…
-
State of Fla. on the relation of Volusia Jai-Alai, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg. of the State of Fla., 304 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…. In State ex rel. Kinsella v. Florida State Racing Commission, 155 Fla. 387, 20 So. 2d 258 (1944), the Supreme Court entertained a mandamus action to compel the issuance of a permit, and in State ex rel. Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Lechner, 195 So. 2d 206 (1967), the Supreme Court entertained mandamus to compel the cancellation of a permit. In the Lechner case, the court cited with approval the principle found in 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 61, that: “The considerations controlling the use of mandamus…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. State Racing Comm'n & Clarence H. Ratliff v. McLAUGHLIN, 102 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Rose, 122 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1935)
- Solomon v. Sanitarians' Registration Bd. of the State of Fla., 155 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1963)
- State v. State Racing Comm'n, 116 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1934)
- Shisler v. Curtis, 116 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1934)