STATE, EX REL. HOLLYWOOD JOCKEY CLUB, INC.,
v.
JOSEPH R. STEIN, PARK GLOVER, FRANK ROGERS, S. J. HILBRUN, AND E. A. WILLIAMS, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE STATE RACING COMMISSION, AND THE SAID PARKS GLOVER, AS SECRETARY OF THE SAID STATE RACING COMMISSION, AND THE STATE RACING COMMISSION
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.
The Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus to the Hollywood Jockey Club, Inc., compelling the State Racing Commission to reconsider its permit revocation, holding that the three-month litigation delay caused by the Commission's unlawful denial of a license application should not count against the statutory twelve-month period for track construction.
The Court held that the three-month litigation delay caused by the State Racing Commission's unlawful denial of the Club's license application should not be counted against the statutory twelve-month construction period, and accordingly granted the writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to rescind the permit revocation.
“Respondents being responsible for the delay, it should not be counted against the Relator.”
Establishes the core holding that the government entity's unlawful actions causing delay should not be charged against the permit holder's statutory deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollywood Jockey Club, Inc. received a racing permit from the State Racing Commission on June 24, 1937, ratified by Broward County electors on August …
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 27 and July 12, 1938, Hollywood Jockey Club, Inc., applied to Florida State Racing Commission for a license to conduct a racing meet and to fix dates therefor during the statutory racing season, December 10, 1938, to April 10, 1939. A similar permit had been applied for and granted in June, 1937. August 12, 1938, Florida State Racing Commission revoked said permit on the ground that the permittee had not constructed a track suitable to conduct racing within the twelve months beginning August 3, 1937, this being the statutory life of the permit.
On petition of Hollywood Jockey Club, Inc., as relator, this Court issued its alternative writ of mandamus directed to Florida State Racing Commission commanding it to rescind its' revocation of Relator’s permit and to issue it the license and to fix dates within which it might conduct racing for the season of 1938-1939 in compliance with its request or show cause why it refused to do so. Respondents have filed their return to the alternative writ to which Relator has demurred and moved to strike specified portions thereof.
The demurrer and the motion to strike raise the single question of the sufficiency of the return to the alternative writ.
The writ discloses that on June 24, 1937, the State Racing Commission issued its permit to Relator to conduct racing in Broward County and that said permit was ratified by the electors of said County August 3, 1937. In September, *2431937, Relator applied to Respondent for license and for dates to conduct racing for the 1937-1938 racing season. This application was denied on the 'sole ground that Respondent had not constructed a suitable racing plant. The application made August 12, 1938, and involved in this litigation was denied for similar reasons.
Section Seven of Chapter 17276, Acts of 1935, prescribes the conditions under which application for permits to conduct racing shall be made and the application involved here is shown to meet the requirements of the law. It is not charged that Relator is not able to give the required bond or has failed in any other respect to comply with the racing law. It is merely alleged that it failed to construct a track suitable to conduct a race meeting within twelve months after the ratification of its permit August 3, 1937.
It is quite true that Section Six of Chapter 17276, Acts of 1935, authorizes the Respondents to revoke any. permit without notice if the holder fails to construct its track within twelve months from the ratification thereof by the people. Relator’s permit was ratified August 3, 1937, and on September 3, following, it applied for license and racing dates but was denied this request on the ground that its track was not constructed, though such construction was well under way.
On account of this action of Respondent, Relator was forced into litigation to establish its rights which consumed three months' during which time work was suspended on the track and its plans thrown into confusion. It is contended that in computing the time allowed under the statute for completing its track, these three months should not be counted against it.
In our view, this contention is well grounded. The pleadings show that on August 4, 1938, when the permit was can-celled, Relator had expended large sums in the construe*244tion of its track, that it was approaching completion, and that Relator had until November 3, 1938, before the twelve months from ratification expired. Respondents being responsible for the delay, it should not be counted against the Relator. Board of County Commissioners of Lafayette County v. Hadley, 63 Fla. 90, 59 So. 14; People, ex rel. Arnd, v. Heckard, et al., 341 Ill. 144, 173 N. E. 124; 58 C. J. 1112, Section 403; 37 C. J. 1039; Section 447.
The demurrer and motion to strike are accordingly sustained.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.