Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

VALLEY FORGE RACING ASSOCIATION v. HORSE RACING COMMISSION AND CONTINENTAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION (02/02/72)

decided: February 2, 1972.

VALLEY FORGE RACING ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
HORSE RACING COMMISSION AND CONTINENTAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERVENOR



Original jurisdiction.

COUNSEL

Perrin C. Hamilton, with him Walter T. Darmopray and Hamilton, Darmopray, Malloy & Milner, for plaintiff.

Joseph P. Work, General Counsel, for defendant.

Harry L. Rossi, for intervenor.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Wilkinson, Jr., disqualified himself. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[4 Pa. Commw. 429 Page 430]

This case involves a complaint in mandamus filed by plaintiff, Valley Forge Racing Association, seeking

[4 Pa. Commw. 429 Page 431]

    enforcement of conditions attached to the issuance of a racing license by the defendant Commission to intervening defendant, Continental Thoroughbred Racing Association, in 1968. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks revocation of Continental's license.

Defendant and intervenor have filed preliminary objections to this complaint raising the issues of whether mandamus is proper in this situation, and whether plaintiff has standing to institute this action. It is our view that the preliminary objections must be sustained.

Proceeding in what we consider to be the proper order, we first determine the question of whether plaintiff, initially a disappointed race-license seeker, has standing to institute the present action.

As annunciated in Keystone Raceway Corp. v. State Harness Racing Commission, 405 Pa. 1, 7, 173 A.2d 97, 100 (1961), the requirements that must be met before a party is shown to have standing are that the parties ". . . must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the particular litigation . . . . And not only must the party desiring to appeal have a direct interest in the particular question litigated, but his interest must be immediate and pecuniary, and not a remote consequence of the judgment. The interest must also be substantial."

Using this standard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that a disappointed license seeker had standing to contest the grant of a racing license to another applicant in Man O'War Racing Association, Inc. v. State Horse Racing Commission, 433 Pa. 432, 250 A.2d 172 (1969). We are of the opinion that the same ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.