Gretna Racing, LLC v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation

225 So. 3d 759 (2017)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gretna Racing, LLC v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Florida Supreme Court
225 So. 3d 759 (2017)

Facts

In 2004, Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to hold countywide referenda in which voters could approve placing slot machines in existing pari-mutuel-wagering facilities. The Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 551 of the Florida Statutes to implement the amendment. Section 551.104(2) authorized the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s License Division (the division) (defendant) to issue a slot-machine-gaming license to an “eligible facility” if voters of the county in which the facility was located authorized slot-machine use by referendum as provided by § 23, Article X of the Florida Constitution. That constitutional provision referred only to Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. However, in 2009, Chapter 551 was amended to define “eligible facility” to include facilities outside of Miami-Dade and Broward. Specifically, § 551.102(4) defined “eligible facility” to include pari-mutuel facilities in any county in which a majority of voters had approved slot machines in a countywide referendum “held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization” after the statute’s effective date. In 2012, Gadsden County, Florida held a countywide referendum in which voters approved slot-machine use in pari-mutuel facilities in Gretna, Florida. Based on that vote, Gretna Racing, LLC (plaintiff) applied for a slot-machine-gaming license. However, the division denied Gretna Racing’s application, concluding that (1) § 551.104(2) was not satisfied because Gadsden County was not covered within § 23, Article X, and (2) § 551.102(4) was not satisfied because the Gadsden County vote approving the slot machines was not an authorized referendum. A Florida appellate court upheld the division’s determination and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether § 551.102(4) had authorized the expansion of slot machines beyond Miami-Dade and Broward by local referenda held without additional statutory or constitutional authorization. On appeal, Gretna Racing argued that Florida’s Constitution gave counties not operating under county charters, including Gadsden, the power of self-government, which authorized county commissioners to conduct binding referenda on county-governance issues including slot-machine gaming.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Canady, J.)

Concurrence (Lewis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership