# Maupin v. Sidiropolis

> West Virginia Supreme Court · June 16, 2004 · 215 W. Va. 492

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9625170

## Case

- **Full name:** Harvey MAUPIN, Jr., Petitioner Below, Appellee, v. George SIDIROPOLIS, Commission Chairman, Dr. Bryan Mitchell, Commission Member, Andrew Payne, III, Commission Member, and the West Virginia Racing Commission, a Statutory Body, Respondents Below, Appellants
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 16, 2004
- **Citations:** 215 W. Va. 492; 600 S.E.2d 204; 2004 W. Va. LEXIS 49
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McGraw
- **Judges:** McGraw
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9625170

## Opinion text

MCGRAW, Justice,
dissenting.
As the majority points out correctly in the third paragraph of its discussion: “The West Virginia Greyhound Breeding Development Fund was established to promote the ownership and breeding of racing greyhounds by West Virginia residents in West Virginia.” By allowing an out-of-state owner to benefit from the fund, the majority decision is at odds with this avowed purpose. The Legislature intended to encourage greyhound breeding and its associated economic activity to take place in West Virginia. The regulation restricts the benefits of the fund to “bona fide resident[s] of West Virginia.” W. Va.C.S.R. § 178-2-51.3 (2000). It does not go on to add “or any out of state greyhound breeder with really clever lawyers.”
It is my hope that the 2004 amendments to W. Va.Code § 19 — 23—10(d) mentioned by the majority will foreclose any such chicanery in the future. Otherwise, West Virginians will be deprived of the opportunities intended by the Legislature when it created the fund. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9625170. Public record. Not legal advice.