HIALEAH RACE COURSE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-12-20
No. 72-755
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
270 So. 2d 410 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Caution
Cited by 9 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on September 26, 1972 (267 So.2d 839) denying petition for writ of certiorari to the Board of Business Regulation, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed November 10, 1972 (270 So.2d 366) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with instructions;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the final order of this court heretofore issued on October 12, 1972 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed September 26, 1972 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida (270 So.2d 366) is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the order of the Board of Business Regulation of the Department of Business Regulation herein sought to be reviewed is quashed and the said Board of Business Regulation is directed to' allocate the middle racing period to Hialeah Race Course, Inc. and to Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., the dates the Board had accorded to Hialeah for the 1972-73 winter season in accordance with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed by the Board of Business Regulation (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)
    …s v. State, 254 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Watson v. State, 200 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); coercion, Koontz v. State, 204 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), entrapment, Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), justifiable homicide, Stinson v. State, 245 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Whitehead v. State, 245 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), and withdrawal, Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.…
  • Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
    …, the officers did not pressure appellant into participating in the transaction. Compare Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1 DCA 1974) (undercover officer continually kept nagging the defendant to get him some marijuana); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4 DCA 1972) (officer kept “bugging” the defendant until the defendant agreed to participate in the sale). This lengthy discourse of non-Florida cases was necessitated by the absence of any Florida case law indicating whether proof of a defend…
  • State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …informant because the informant induced them over a period of three months to participate in the crime. This assertion, if true, might constitute an entrapment defense. See Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In addition, a defendant must demonstrate that the testimony of the informant is essential to establish the defense. The mere possibility that disclosure of the informant’s identity might aid in the defense is insufficient to s…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw