# Station Square Gaming L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 18, 2007 · 592 Pa. 664

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757732

## Case

- **Full name:** STATION SQUARE GAMING L.P., Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Respondent. PITG Gaming, L.L.C., Intervenor; IOC Pittsburgh, Inc., Petitioner, v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, Respondent. PITG Gaming, L.L.C., Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 18, 2007
- **Citations:** 592 Pa. 664; 927 A.2d 232; 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1445
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baldwin
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, Fitzgerald
- **Cited by:** 37 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/9757732

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

Justice BALDWIN,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I write separately to address the prudent man standard of care. Having given careful consideration to Petitioner’s arguments, I read the majority opinion to confirm that the “prudent man” standard of care, imposed upon the Board, is subsumed within the standard of review for this Court articulated in 4 Pa.C.S. § 1204 (error of law, or order was arbitrary and there was a capricious disregard of the evidence). That is, this Court is not to apply the standard of care itself, but rather, to review whether the Board acted in an arbitrary manner or with capricious disregard for the evidence, a finding which could be supported by the Board’s failure to apply the prudent man standard of care. Because I agree with the majority that the Board did not act in an arbitrary manner or with capricious disregard for the evidence in the instant case, I join that opinion. See, Majority Opinion, op. at 678-79, 927 A.2d at 241-42.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757732. Public record. Not legal advice.