noting that Board asserts claims were waived but “has not pointed this [C]ourt to anything reassuring us that [losing applicants] had a way in which to lodge such objections to the financial suitability inquiry conducted by the Board” with inspect to winning applicant
How later courts described this case
- noting that Board asserts claims were waived but “has not pointed this [C]ourt to anything reassuring us that [losing applicants] had a way in which to lodge such objections to the financial suitability inquiry conducted by the Board” with inspect to winning applicant
- Board “logically and properly” weighed negative comments from public in rendering licensing decision
- Board may consider quality of facility in determining which applicant receives slots license, but Act does not impose burden on applicant to show by clear and convincing evidence that its proposed facility is “the best quality”
- application process is fluid and anticipates submission of additional materials by applicants
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice BAER,
concurring.
I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor’s thoughtful observations regarding the effect that the applicable “prudent man” stan *697 dard has on our review under the circumstances of this case. In all other respects, I join the Majority Opinion.