Evans v. Arkansas Racing Commission
| Decision Date | 20 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-92,80-92 |
| Citation | 270 Ark. 788,606 S.W.2d 578 |
| Parties | Gomer EVANS, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS RACING COMMISSION and Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Putman, Gallman & Dickson by James W. Gallman, Fayetteville, for appellant.
Byron Freeland, Mitchell, Williams, Gill & Selig, and Friday, Eldredge & Clark by Herschel H. Friday, Little Rock, for appellees.
Gomer Evans, a thoroughbred horse owner and trainer, was denied permission by the Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc., to race his horses during the 1980 racing season. Oaklawn, a private corporation, operates the Oaklawn Race Track at Hot Springs, Arkansas, by virtue of a state franchise.
The Arkansas Racing Commission, a state agency charged with the regulation of Oaklawn, held three hearings in the Evans matter. Evans was granted a temporary license at one hearing and a regular one-year or seasonal license at the second hearing. Oaklawn refused to permit Evans to race his horses despite the license. At the third hearing the Commission did not order Oaklawn to permit Evans to race. The Pulaski County Circuit Court upheld the Commission's actions on appeal.
Evans appeals from that judgment alleging five errors. First, Evans argues that he had, as a licensee, a property interest and was entitled to protection by due process of law; second, that he did not receive due process in a proper hearing; third, Oaklawn, while a private corporation, could not exclude Evans under its common law property rights; fourth, he was denied his rights without substantial evidence; and, finally, the Commission was legally empowered to overrule Oaklawn's decision to exclude Evans despite his license.
Oaklawn argues that the Commission's ruling was lawful, but, in any event, as a private corporation it had the common law right to exclude Evans for whatever reasons it chose. At the final hearing, a question was raised whether the Commission had the power to order Oaklawn to permit Evans to race his horses. In any event, the Commission denied Evans' appeal and declined to overrule Oaklawn's actions. On appeal the Commission argues that even if it had that authority, it declined to exercise the power because Oaklawn has the right to make certain business judgments and this was one of them.
We affirm the circuit court judgment and the Commission's actions.
The facts are not seriously disputed. Evans has a substantial stable of thoroughbreds, raising horses in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Illinois. He has raced his horses at tracks in Arkansas, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Louisiana. Evans has raced horses as a trainer or owner at Oaklawn since 1954 and has been licensed for all those years with a one-year or seasonal license. Oaklawn operates the only thoroughbred race track in Arkansas; the racing season usually begins in February of each year and runs for about 60 days.
In late 1979 only one Oaklawn steward signed Evans' application for a license, three being required. Oaklawn did not grant Evans any stall space for his horses as it had in past years and refunded his money for a spectator's box. It is undisputed that Oaklawn gave Evans no reasons for these actions. Evans was justified in concluding that he was being denied access to Oaklawn as an owner or trainer for the 1980 racing season.
Subsequently, Evans filed an appeal with the Arkansas Racing Commission asking for a license. The Commission, not Oaklawn, is empowered by law to grant the licenses to owners, trainers and jockeys. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 84-2734(c) (Repl.1980).
On February 8, 1980, a hearing was held before the Commission, all parties being present and represented by counsel. Oaklawn still gave no real reasons for its actions regarding Evans, contending it needed none since it was a private corporation and not a state agency. The Commission granted Evans a temporary license until it could hold a "due process" hearing.
A week later, on February 16, another hearing was held with all parties present and represented by counsel. Evans was the only witness. During his testimony he was confronted with a bulletin mailed out November 13, 1979, by the Thoroughbred Racing Association, which read:
Although it took place on a non-TRA track early in October TRPB learned that Gomer Evans, a licensed trainer, who prefers bookmaking to training, was ejected and barred at Louisiana Downs. Evans was not only made to leave personally but his horses were also evicted. The immediate cause of this action was evidence involving a demonstrated bookmaking activity. All tracks should recognize the fact that there is no need to permit or put up with the likes of Evans, especially with strong legal precedence which exists and under which a private race track can deny stalls and/or rejection to premises.
Evans denied any knowledge of the bulletin, and no evidence was offered that he knew of it before the February 16th hearing. Evans contended that he had never been guilty of "bookmaking" and asserted he was not "put off" the Louisiana Downs Race Track or accused of any illegal activity in Louisiana in 1979. He did admit that the security chief at Louisiana Downs had asked him to remove his horses. Evans' testimony reads as follows:
Q. Are you familiar with a Mr. Pernici in Louisiana?
A. I know who the man is.
Q. Is he the director of security at Louisiana Downs?
A. That's who he is.
Q. And did Mr. Pernici ask you to leave the grounds?
A. He asked me to ship my horses.
Q. Did you question Mr. Pernici why he was asking you to leave the track?
A. I did ask him why. He said he would rather not go into it and also said "I can't make you do it." ...
Q. When they came to you the next day and asked you to please ship these other six horses did you want to know why?
A. Yes, I did. He said "I don't want to get into it, and if you don't want to we can't make you, but we might take other measures if you don't." I didn't want to be there-I had heard about those guys down there and I don't think you could win and stay there if they didn't want you.
Evans removed the horses he had at the Louisiana track; but he contends that the action of the security chief was a request, not an order.
Part of a letter from Richard Pernici to Oaklawn was read into the record. It reads:
After receiving numerous complaints regarding bookmaking activities by Gomer Evans, Sr., at the Louisiana Downs Race Track, surveillance was established by Louisiana Downs security personnel on the subject. Surveillance determined a large number of individuals approaching Evans repeatedly between races giving him verbal information and on a number of occasions Evans was observed making notations on a piece of paper which appeared to be the front of an overnight sheet. Coming on down, following the 7th race on 9/26/79, this writer invited Mr. Evans to the security office at which time he was informed the management wanted him to remove his stock from the grounds as well as himself and conduct his racing at some location other than Louisiana Downs. Mr. Evans departed.
Evans admitted to some suspensions at out-of-state tracks in prior years, but it was conceded that these suspensions caused Evans no problems in Arkansas because he had raced his horses at Oaklawn since those incidents. Evans admitted that he and his friends were watched for "bookmaking" actions at Oaklawn in 1979, but testified that he was never confronted by Oaklawn about bookmaking. That statement was not refuted.
In a statement to the Commission, counsel for Oaklawn said Oaklawn had FBI reports which contained complaints of Evans acting as a "bookmaker." Those reports were not offered as evidence. 1 Oaklawn argued that Evans should not be granted a license because of the evidence it had produced. Further, Oaklawn defended its position that it was a private corporation and needed no legal cause for denying Evans access to the track.
Evans argued that (1) Oaklawn had no such absolute right since it was actually an arm of the state and bound to comply with due process of law; (2) Oaklawn had given him no notice or reasons for its actions; and (3) Oaklawn had not afforded him a hearing. Evans also argued that the evidence, admittedly hearsay, did not warrant denying him a license and a right to race his horses.
Four commissioners voted to grant Evans a license, one abstained and one voted to deny Evans a license.
During the second hearing Oaklawn informed the Commission it would continue to exclude Evans and immediately after the hearing wrote Evans a letter formally denying him access to the track. 2
Evans appealed again to the Commission and another hearing was held February 23, 1980. This hearing actually was just a presentation of the positions of Evans and Oaklawn.
Evans argued he had been issued a license by the Commission, that this license was a property right, and that this property right was being denied him by the arbitrary action of Oaklawn. Furthermore, Evans argued that the Commission had the power to order Oaklawn to let him race.
Oaklawn argued that it had the right, as set forth in its formal letter to Evans, to keep Evans from racing, despite his license. The Commission declined to overrule Oaklawn's decision.
Evans appealed from the Commission's decision to the Pulaski Circuit Court. The court approved the Commission's actions, reciting that "The Commission was not authorized by Arkansas law, or rules or regulations to supervise Oaklawn as here sought by Evans."
Generally, the legal issues raised fall into two categories: First, Oaklawn's authority as a private corporation holding a public franchise; next, the legality of the Arkansas State Racing Commission's hearings and decision.
In the first regard two questions must be answered: Did Oaklawn have the right to act as it did in denying Evans access to the track before any hearings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catrone v. State Racing Com'n
...Park Jockey Club, 145 F.Supp. 439, 440-441 (D.N.J.1956), aff'd per curiam, 242 F.2d 344 (3d Cir.1957); Evans v. Arkansas Racing Commn., 270 Ark. 788, 797-803, 606 S.W.2d 578 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1980, 68 L.Ed.2d 299 (1981). See cases involving patrons at race tracks......
-
Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd. v. Butler Const. Co., Inc. of Barling, Ark.
...fee was less than $20,000. The rules of evidence applicable to administrative proceedings are more relaxed, Evans v. Arkansas Racing Commission, 270 Ark. 788, 606 S.W.2d 578 (1980); Fisher v. Branscum, 243 Ark. 516, 420 S.W.2d 882 (1967). Besides, Butler testified to this same information w......
-
Fox v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n
...A.D.2d 137, 457 N.Y.S.2d 958, State of New York, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department (1982); Evans v. Arkansas Racing Commission, 270 Ark. 788, 606 S.W.2d 578 (1980); Martin v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club, 145 F.Supp. 439 (D.N.J.1956), we hold that under the Louisiana statutor......