Articles Posted in Gaming Law

by
At issue was whether Gadsden County is a “county in which a majority of voters have approved slot machines…in a countywide referendum held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization after the effective date of this section” under Fla. Stat. 551.102(4). Under the section 551.104(1), the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering is authorized to issue licenses to conduct slot machine gaming to “eligible facilities,” as defined in section 551.102(4). However, under section 551.102(2), licenses are limited to facilities in counties where the voters have approved slot machines as provided by article X, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, which does not extend beyond the counties of Miami-Dade and Broward. The Division denied a slot machine permit to Gretna Racing, LLC, a horse track facility in Gadsden County, based on the Division’s conclusion that neither the requirements of section 551.102(2) nor section 551.102(4) had been satisfied. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Division’s denial of the license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the law establishing the powers of non-charter counties and the provisions of chapter 551, Florida Statutes, the Division’s denial of the slot machine permit sought by Gretna Racing was correct because submission of the ballot question to the voters was not legally authorized. View "Gretna Racing, LLC v. Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

by
Fla. Stat. 550.054(14)(a), effective July 1, 2010, sets forth the standards a holder of a permit to conduct jai alai must meet to convert the permit to a permit to conduct greyhound racing in lieu of jai alai. Two businesses d applied for the conversion of their jai alai permits on the day section 550.054 became effective. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (DBPR) granted the applications. Thereafter, Appellees instituted a declaratory judgment alleging that section 550.054(14) was an unconstitutional special law. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the two businesses and DBPR, concluding that the statute was a general law. The First District reversed, concluding that section 550.054(14)(a) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is a valid general law. View "Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation v. Debary Real Estate Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law