HIALEAH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hialeah, Inc. appealed the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission's assignment of racing dates for the 1987-88 season, arguing the Commission acted arbitrarily by favoring higher revenue producers. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it was based on deliberate application of the statutory seven-factor test and supported by competent and substantial evidence.
The Commission's assignment of racing dates was proper and supported by competent and substantial evidence based on deliberate application of the seven required factors. The geography factor was not improperly weighted, and consideration of Hialeah's inferior location did not constitute an arbitrary or improper basis for the decision. The Commission properly exercised its discretion in rejecting Hialeah's economic hardship argument.
[1] A pari-mutuel commission's assignment of racing dates is presumed valid when based on a deliberate application of statutorily required factors and supported by competent…
[2] A pari-mutuel commission must consider all seven statutory factors when determining the assignment of racing dates, including the geographical location of the tracks.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Commission's assignment of the racing dates is based upon a deliberate application of the seven factors required for such a determination”
Establishes that the Commission's decision was not arbitrary but followed the required statutory test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission assigned racing dates for the 1987-88 season: first dates to Hialeah, Inc., middle dates to Gulfstream Park Racing …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Agency Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order entered by the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission (Commission) awarding the first racing dates to Hialeah, Inc. (Hialeah), the middle racing dates to Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., and the third racing dates to Tropical Park, Inc., for the 1987-88 season. We reject Hialeah’s claim that the Commission simply granted the most lucrative dates to the greatest producer of revenue in an arbitrary manner. We find that the Commission’s assignment of the racing dates is based upon a deliberate application of the seven factors required for such a determination, see Gulfstream Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Hialeah, Inc., 453 So. 2d 812 (Fla.1984), and that the Commission’s findings of fact are supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Furthermore, there is no support for Hialeah’s contention that the Commission weighted the geography factor any more heavily than the other factors, thereby punishing Hialeah for its location. We do note that the Commission was required to, and did, consider Hialeah’s inferior location in reaching its decision. Cf. Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Board of Business Regulation, 270 So. 2d 366, 369 (Fla.1972) (Commission must consider seven factors, including geography, in determination of assignments of racing dates). Contrary to Hialeah’s contention, this is not a basis for overturning the Commission’s decision.
Finally, the commission was within its discretionary authority in awarding the first racing dates to Hialeah, notwithstanding Hialeah’s assertion that such an assignment might result in its economic ruin. Although the Commission is empowered to take into account strong and compelling reasons for granting one track more lucrative dates over another track, Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Board of Business Regulation, 318 So. 2d 458, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA) (Gulfstream I), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1975), in this case the Commission was obviously unpersuaded, based upon the evidence before it, to deviate from the seven factor test based upon Hialeah’s claim of inevitable bankruptcy. “Unless this Court’s function is to make racing policy rather than to read law, we must respect the [Commission’s] decision.” Gulfstream I, 318 So. 2d at 466. Accordingly, the decision of the Commission is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 270 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1972)
- Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 318 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Hialeah, Inc., 453 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1984)
- Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 322 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1975)
- McLEOD v. The Clerk OF the Cir. Court IN & FOR Duval Cnty., 322 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1975)