Station Square Gaming LP v. PA Gaming Control Board, No. 28 mm 2007 and IOC Pittsburgh, Inc. v. PA Gaming Control Board (Concurring 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 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE BALDWIN DECIDED: July 18, 2007 I join the majority opinion. I write separately to address the prudent man standard of care. Having given careful consideration to Petitioner s arguments, I read the majority opinion to confirm that the prudent man standard of care, imposed upon the Board, is subsumed within the standard of review for this Court articulated in 4 Pa.C.S. § 1204 (error of law, or order was arbitrary and there was a capricious disregard of the evidence). That is, this Court is not to apply the standard of care itself, but rather, to review whether the Board acted in an arbitrary manner or with capricious disregard for the evidence, a finding which could be supported by the Board s failure to apply the prudent man standard of care. Because I agree with the majority that the Board did not act in an arbitrary manner or with capricious disregard for the evidence in the instant case, I join that opinion. See, Majority Opinion, slip op. at 10-13. [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.