# Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP v. Pa. G. C. Bd.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 20, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4179008

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 20, 2017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4179008

## Opinion text

[J-133&134-2016][M.O. - Todd, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT

SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P., : No. 124 EM 2016

Petitioner : Appeal from the Supplemental
: Adjudication of the Pennsylvania
v. : Gaming Control Board in the matter of
: the Applications for the Category 2 Slot
Machine License in the City of the First
PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL : Class, Philadelphia, dated 6/23/16
BOARD,

Respondent : SUBMITTED: November 7, 2016

STADIUM CASINO, LLC,

Intervenor

MARKET EAST ASSOCIATES, L.P., : No. 125 EM 2016

Petitioner : Appeal from the Supplemental
: Adjudication of the Pennsylvania
v. : Gaming Control Board in the matter of
: the Applications for the Category 2 Slot
Machine License in the City of the First
PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL : Class, Philadelphia, dated 6/23/16
BOARD,

Respondent
: SUBMITTED: November 7, 2016
STADIUM CASINO, LLC,

Intervenor

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: June 20, 2017
I join the majority opinion in full, albeit that I have reservations concerning the

degree to which the analysis of the term "financial interest" as being exclusive of an

"ownership" interest would be applied in other cases. I accept the majority's

assessment here, because it is immaterial whether the former term encompasses the

latter, since both terms appear side by side in the statute under review. If this were not

the case -- as for example, if the terms "ownership or financial interest" and "financial

interest" were used in two separate subsections of the same statute for different

purposes -- would likely be more amenable to the view that the difference gives rise to
I

an ambiguity, thus implicating resort to the tools of statutory construction.

Stated otherwise, it is difficult for me to believe that the General Assembly would

employ the term "financial interest" to exclude ownership interests, absent some explicit

indication to that effect.

[J-133&134-2016][M.O. - Todd, J.] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4179008. Public record. Not legal advice.