Station Square Gaming LP v. PA Gaming Control Board, No. 28 mm 2007 and IOC Pittsburgh, Inc. v. PA Gaming Control Board (Dissenting Opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-44-45-2007] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT STATION SQUARE GAMING LP, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Respondent IOC PITTSBURGH, INC., Intervenor PITG GAMING, LLC, Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 28 MM 2007 Petition for Review from the Order of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Dated February 1, 2007 Granting the Application of PITG Gaming LLC and Denying the Application of Station Square Gaming LP for a Category 2 Slot Machine License in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Docket Nos. 1361 and 1363 ARGUED: May 15, 2007 ************************* IOC PITTSBURGH, INC., Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Respondent PITG GAMING, LLC, Intervenor STATION SQUARE GAMING LP, Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 29 MM 2007 Petition for Review from the Order of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Dated February 1, 2007 Granting the Application of PITG Gaming LLC and Denying the Application of IOC Pittsburgh, Inc. for a Category 2 Slot Machine License in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Docket Nos. 1357 and 1361 ARGUED: May 15, 2007 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: July 18, 2007 I join the concerns articulated by Mr. Justice Saylor in his Concurring Opinion, and particularly his concern regarding the "prudent man standard" and economic issues affecting Majestic Star. However, unlike Justice Saylor, I believe those concerns warrant a remand to the Board for reconsideration. For the reasons I have set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in Riverwalk Casino, LP v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, J-42-2007, the failure of the Board to conduct any of its deliberations in public, or to allow for the equivalent of a post-verdict procedure once the Board finally articulated the grounds for its decision, necessitates a fuller consideration and explanation. Hence, I respectfully dissent. [J-44-45-2007] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.