Legal Opinion
Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 16, 2010No. 2145 C.D. 2009, 74 C.D. 2010PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
We consider an issue of first impression: under what circumstances may a person who did not appeal the denial of its application for a gaming license become involved in subsequent administrative proceedings of a licensee. We hold that under the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (Act), 1 the circumstances for such a person to become involved are limited and involvement is subject to the discretion of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB or Board).
In these consolidated appeals, Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC (Keystone), an unsuccessful…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Callahan v. Pennsylvania State PoliceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bensalem Racing Ass'n v. Pennsylvania State Harness Racing CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Denaples v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Shawnee Tabernacle Church v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- City of Philadelphia v. PLRBCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
- Com. v. Hickson, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.