Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Philadelphia's ordinance submitting a charter amendment concerning the location of gaming facilities was subject to the court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania Gaming Act. The court concluded that the ordinance conflicted with the Gaming Act by allowing voters to nullify the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board's decisions regarding the locations of licensed facilities. Respondents were permanently enjoined from placing the ballot question before Philadelphia voters.
Holdings
- Section 1506 vested the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania with exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review Philadelphia's ordinance because the ordinance constituted a determination or decision of a political subdivision involving the location of licensed facilities.
- The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board was aggrieved and had standing to challenge the ordinance because it had a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in exercising its statutory authority and duty to locate licensed facilities.
- The Gaming Act gives the Board, and only the Board, authority to locate Category 2 licensed facilities in a city of the first class. Philadelphia's ordinance was invalid because it allowed the electorate to consider and nullify the Board's location decisions and to direct local officials to disregard local laws implementing those decisions.
- The Board established a clear right to permanent injunctive relief, and the respondents were permanently enjoined from placing the proposed charter-amendment question on the ballot.
Questions Presented
- Whether Section 1506 of the Pennsylvania Gaming Act gave the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania exclusive jurisdiction to review Philadelphia's ordinance submitting the gaming-related charter amendment to voters.
- Whether the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board had standing to challenge the ordinance.
- Whether the ordinance conflicted with the Gaming Act by allowing Philadelphia voters to affect or nullify the Board's decisions locating Category 2 licensed facilities in Philadelphia.
- Whether the Board was entitled to a permanent injunction preventing the respondents from placing the ballot question on the ballot.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (13)
- Buffalo Township v. Jones, 571 Pa. 637, 813 A.2d 659, 663 (2002)(followed)
- Commonwealth, Department of General Services v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Association, 505 Pa. 614, 483 A.2d 448, 451 (1984)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 523 Pa. 107, 565 A.2d 426, 428 (1989)(followed)
- Dauphin County Public Defender's Office v. Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 578 Pa. 59, 849 A.2d 1145, 1148-49 (2004)(followed)
- Deer Creek Drainage Basin Authority v. County Board of Elections of Allegheny County, 475 Pa. 491, 381 A.2d 103 (1977)(followed)
- Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, 580 Pa. 564, 862 A.2d 1234, 1242 (2004)(followed)
- In re Hickson, 573 Pa. 127, 821 A.2d 1238, 1243 (2003)(followed)
- In re Avellino, 547 Pa. 385, 690 A.2d 1138, 1140-41 (1997)(followed)
- Mt. Lebanon v. County Board of Elections of Allegheny County, 470 Pa. 317, 368 A.2d 648, 649-50 (1977)(distinguished)
- Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152, 156 (1996)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…