Legal Opinion · Dissent

Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 28, 2014Published

1DissentChief Justice Castille

I respectfully dissent from the able Majority Opinion because I cannot agree that, in defining the phrase “gross terminal revenue” vis-a-vis slot machines, the General Assembly intended to create a loophole for casinos whereby their discretionary general marketing and promotional costs — matters over which the Commonwealth has no control — may be passed on to the taxpayers.

At the heart of this matter lies the fact that Greenwood spent $1.1 million in cash and non-cash awards-including vehicles, event tickets, and gift cards-to market and promote its business, and now seeks to offset those…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Bundy v. BelinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API