The opinion
[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