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 CASTILLE,
dissenting.
I join the concerns articulated by Mr. Justice Saylor in his Concurring Opinion, and particularly his concern regarding the “prudent man standard” and economic issues affecting Majestic Star. However, unlike Justice Saylor, I believe those concerns warrant a remand to the Board for reconsideration. For the reasons I have set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in Riverwalk Casino, LP v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, J-42-2007, 592 Pa. 505 , 926 A.2d 926 , the failure of the Board to conduct any of its deliberations in public, or to allow for the equivalent of a post-verdict procedure once the Board finally articulated the grounds for its decision, necessitates a fuller consideration and explanation. Hence, I respectfully dissent.