Oklahoma Park, Inc. v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Com'n, 64734

• Decision Date: 25 March 1986
• Docket Number: No. 64734,64734
• Parties: OKLAHOMA PARK, INC., Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA HORSE RACING COMMISSION, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 666

716 P.2d 666

1986 OK 7

OKLAHOMA PARK, INC., Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA HORSE RACING COMMISSION, Appellant.

No. 64734.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 25, 1986.

Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., Neal Leader, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Kenneth L. Delashaw, Jr., Robert M. Highsmith, Milor, Eakin, Burns & Delashaw, Inc., Marietta, for appellee.

Mary Joe Smith, Little, Little, Little, Windel & Smith, Tishomingo, amicus curiae Southern Oklahoma Horsemens' Assoc.

SIMMS, Chief Justice.

Appellee, Oklahoma Park, Inc., applied to the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission for an organization license. After a full hearing, at which considerable testimony and evidence were received, the Commission denied the application because Oklahoma Park failed to demonstrate that its plan for financing and operating the proposed facility had sufficient financial integrity.

Oklahoma Park appealed to the District Court of Love County. That court reversed the Commission's order, and remanded the matter to the Commission with directions to grant Oklahoma Park an organization license on the condition that within 60 days the applicant demonstrate, to the court's satisfaction, that it had received funding.

The Commission appealed and also sought a stay of the district court's order pending determination of the merits of the appeal. After hearing on the matter, this Court issued an order staying the judgment of the trial court pending appeal.

Appellant Commission contends that the trial court erred in reversing the Commission as its action denying the license had been supported by substantial evidence and relevant laws had been correctly applied. Appellant submits the trial court arbitrarily substituted its judgment for that of the Commission, rather than reviewing the administrative action under the proper standard of review which would have required affirmance.

Appellant argues that its case met the substantial evidence test of 75 O.S. 1981 § 322, and our decisions interpreting it, such as Tulsa Area Hospital Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts University, Okl., 626 P.2d 316 (1981).

Appellant next contends that the district court compounded its error by ordering the Commission to grant the appellee a 60 day conditional license. The Commission argues that even if it had committed reversible error, the trial court's remedy was improper under 3A O.S.1981 § 322(1)(e) as demonstrated by this Court's recent decision in Humana Hospital Corporation v. The Oklahoma Health Planning Commission, Okl., 705 P.2d 175 (1985).

For the reasons set out below, we hold that the District Court did err in reversing the order of the Commission. We reverse the trial court, vacate its order and affirm the action of the Commission. We therefore need not address questions as to the propriety of the trial court's remand with directions to grant a conditional license.

The Commission is charged by clear statutory mandate to design, create and maintain a racing program which is free of even a suggestion of corruption or dishonesty. Title 3A O.S.Supp.1984 § 203.7, provides:

In the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, it is hereby declared to be the purpose and intent of the Oklahoma Horse Racing Act to vest in the Commission plenary power to promulgate rules and regulations for the forceful control of race meetings held in this state. The rules and regulations shall:

1. encourage agriculture and the breeding of horses in this state; and

2. maintain race meetings held in this state of the highest quality and free of any horse racing practices which are corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, or unprincipled; and

3. dissipate any cloud of association with the undesirable and maintain the appearance as well as the fact of complete honesty and integrity of horse racing in this state; and

4. generate public revenues. (Emphasis supplied.)

In order to carry out its responsibility to fully and carefully consider applications for an organization license, the Commission is empowered to exercise discretion in weighing the decision to grant or deny a license.

Title 3A O.S.Supp.1984 § 205.2(B) provides: "The Commission may exercise discretion in the issuing of organization licenses to qualified applicants...." That statute further requires the following:

"... When granting organization licenses and allocating dates for race meetings which will, in the judgment of the Commission, be conducive to the best interests of the public and the sport of horse racing, the Commission shall give consideration to:

1. the character, reputation, experience, and financial integrity of each applicant and of any other person that:

a. directly or indirectly controls such applicant, or

b. is directly or indirectly controlled by such applicant or by a person who directly or indirectly controls such applicant; and

2. the facilities and accommodations of the applicant for the conduct of race meetings; and

3. the location of the race meeting of the applicant in relation to the principal centers of population of this state; and

4. the highest prospective total revenue to be derived by the state from the conduct of the race meeting." (Emphasis supplied.)

The Commission contends that its finding that the appellee's proposed financial package lacked the...