Preview:

Headnote: Maryland Racing Commission v. Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc., No. 1923, Sept. Term, 1998 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - Although the legislature did not contemplate an application of a statute to the present case, the plain language controls absent ambiguity and clear evidence of a contrary intent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Substantial and credible evidence in record supported agency's determination denying a party's request to simulcast inter-state cross-breed racing.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1923 September Term, 1998

MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION, et al. v. CLOVERLEAF ENTERPRISES, INC.

Wenner, Thieme, Sonner, JJ.

Opinion by Wenner, J.

Filed: September 10, 1999

Appellee,

Cloverleaf

Enterprises,

Inc.,

(CEI),

filed

a

petition with the Maryland Racing Commission (MRC) requesting permission to simulcast out-of-state thoroughbred races and conduct pari-mutuel betting at Rosecroft Raceway on these out-of-state races. CEI conducts live harness racing at Rosecroft Raceway. The

Maryland Jockey Club of Baltimore City, Inc. (MJC), and the Laurel Racing Association, Inc. (Laurel), owners of Laurel and Pimlico racetracks, opposed CEI's request. MRC denied CEI's request. CEI then sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. oral argument, the After considering written memoranda and judge filed an opinion and order After a contested hearing, the

hearing

vacating the decision of the MRC and remanded the case to the MRC "for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion." On appeal, Laurel and the MJC present us with the following questions:1 1. Should CEI's request to directly import simulcasts of out-of-state thoroughbred racing for betting at its harness track have been denied as a matter of law as unauthorized by the Maryland Horse Racing Act?

We have adopted the questions presented in Laurel and the MJC's brief. The MRC raises the following question in its brief: Did the Maryland Racing Commission properly exercise its discretion in deciding that it would not be in the best interests of the Maryland horse racing industry as a whole to grant the request of a racing association, Licensed by the commission to conduct harness racing, to independently conduct betting on thoroughbred races simulcast from out-of-state?

1

-22. Assuming CEI's request was not contrary to the Maryland Horse Racing Act, did the Commission nevertheless act within the permissible range of its discretion when it denied CEI's request? Laurel and the MJC's first question in the

We

shall

answer

negative, their second in the affirmative, and reverse the judgment of the circuit court. Facts CEI is the licensed owner of Rosecroft Raceway, located in Oxon Hill, Maryland. imported simulcast Since 1993, with the MRC's approval, CEI has signals from out-of-state thoroughbred

racetracks pursuant to a Facilities Use Agreement with CEI and other racetracks. After importing these signals, CEI then

simulcast thoroughbred races to other Maryland racetracks and offtrack betting facilities. Use Agreement, it filed When CEI withdrew from the Facilities a petition with the MRC requesting

permission to simulcast out-of-state thoroughbred races, pursuant to Md. Code (1992, 1998 Repl. Vol.),

Download MD Racing Comm v. Cloverleaf.pdf

Maryland Law