Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 4, 2004Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge SMITH-RIBNER.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the State Horse Racing Commission’s order granting Pres-que Isle a license to conduct thoroughbred horse racing without requiring a review of the application of Presque Isle Downs, Inc. pursuant to the Commission’s newly adopted comparative review process. I note the majority’s conclusion that Pittsburgh Palisades failed to preserve any right to participate in an administrative *68hearing addressing only the merits of Presque Isle’s application and that the Commission’s denial of Pittsburgh…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Department of Environmental Resources v. Rushton Mining Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. R.M. v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance AgencyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Moyer v. Berks County Board of Assessment AppealsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Cashdollar v. STATE HORSE RACING COM'NCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. MEC Pennsylvania Racing, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API