# 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/9757733

## 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:** Dissent by Castille
- **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/9757733

## 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 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757733. Public record. Not legal advice.