# State ex rel. Magnolia Park, Inc. v. Louisiana State Racing Commission

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · December 21, 1956 · 231 La. 720

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7175222

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana ex rel. MAGNOLIA PARK, Inc. v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COMMISSION
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 21, 1956
- **Citations:** 231 La. 720; 92 So. 2d 699; 1956 La. LEXIS 1567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hawthorne
- **Judges:** Fournet, Hamiter, Hawthorne, Hoc, Martinez, Ponder, Reasons
- **Cited by:** 5 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/7175222

## Opinion text

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(concurring).
I am of the firm opinion that the statute 1 insofar as it authorizes the Louisiana State Racing Commission to issue licenses permitting the. licensees to engage in parimutuel and bookmaking forms of gambling is clearly unconstitutional because it violates Article 19, Section 8, of the Louisiana Constitution which provides that gambling is a vice and the Legislature shall pass laws to suppress it. See my dissenting opinion in Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 227 La. 45 , 78 So.2d 504 . Under this view neither Kenner Racing Association, Inc., nor Magnolia Park, Inc., nor any other applicant should be granted a license under which the licensee *733 could engage in such forms of gambling. In the Gandolfo case, .supra, a majority of this court concluded that the statute which permits licensees to engage in these forms of gambling is constitutional, or, in other words, that these forms of gambling are legal when conducted in the manner set forth in the statute by a licensee who has obtained a license under the provisions of the statute. Although I do not agree with this conclusion, I must recognize the existence of such a decree, and that the majority holding in the Gandolfo case is, at present, the law. Recognizing the law to be as set forth above, I concur in the views expressed by the majority opinion in the instant case on the issues presented here.
. R..S. 4:141 et seq.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7175222. Public record. Not legal advice.