People ex rel. Scott v. Illinois Racing Bd.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 45673,45673
• Citation: 301 N.E.2d 285,54 Ill.2d 569
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. William J. SCOTT, Attorney General, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS RACING BOARD et al., Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 285

301 N.E.2d 285

54 Ill.2d 569

The PEOPLE ex rel. William J. SCOTT, Attorney General, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS RACING BOARD et al., Appellees.

No. 45673.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 4, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1973.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Fred F. Herzog, Bernard Genis, Herbert L. Caplan and Richard Robin, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas D. Nash and Robert M. Ahern, Chicago, for appellees Balmoral Park Trot, Inc., Balmoral Jockey Club, Inc. and Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc.

Carey, Filter & White, Chicago (Edward M. White, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees Suburban Down, Inc. and Estate of Thomas Carey.

Martin J. Oberman, Chicago, for appellee Ill. Racing Bd.

Howard & Howard, Mt. Vernon (G. W. Howard, III, Mount Vernon, of counsel), the appellee Egyptian Trotting Assn., Inc.

UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice:

This appeal questions a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County affirming action taken by the Illinois Racing Board in granting licenses and allotting dates to certain applicants for the 1973 horse racing season. The appeal was taken by the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State, under provisions of the Administrative Review Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.) Pursuant to our rule 302(b), Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, § 302(b), we allowed direct appeal. 50 Ill.2d R. 302.

The Illinois Racing Board conducted hearings on applications for racing licenses and dates for the 1973 season, and, at the invitation of the Board, a representative of the Attorney General participated in those proceedings. Testimony was heard from the applicants, other representatives of the horse racing industry, and the public generally, and a number of exhibits were received in evidence. The voluminous record consists primarily of materials concerning the past and projected performances of the applicants with regard to the quality of racing facilities, revenues to the State generated by pari-mutuel betting, competitive ability and general soundness of management. Pertinent here is testimony regarding the applications of Balmoral Jockey Club, Inc., for thoroughbred dates and Balmoral Park Trot, Inc., Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc., and Egyptian Trotting Association, Inc., for harness dates. As to Balmoral Jackey Club and Balmoral Park Trot, it was shown that William S. Miller, former chairman of the Illinois Racing Board, had substantial ownership interests in both entities. Miller owned approximately 66% Of the stock of Chicago Harness Racing, Inc., which in turn held 61% Of the shares outstanding in Balmoral Jockey Club. In addition, Miller individually owned 7,000 shares or 7% Of the outstanding 99,390 shares of stock in Balmoral Jockey Club. Balmoral Jockey Club owned 1,500 shares or a 30% Interest in Balmoral Park Trot and was its largest single stockholder. There was evidence that Miller had executed a trust agreement, by which he purportedly divested himself of all control over Chicago Harness Racing and Balmoral Jockey Club until December 31, 1973. Other testimony before the Board established that Miller was, at the time of the application hearings, under indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on charges of perjury, bribery, mail fraud and income tax evasion, allegedly in connection with certain race track transactions. Also pending in the United States Tax Court was a petition on behalf of Miller and his wife Catherine, appealing a determination of tax deficiency and penalty by the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $2,768,644. The alleged deficiency was predicated upon the valuation of shares of stock in certain racing stock transactions in which Miller participated for the calendar year 1967.

In regard to the application of Fox Valley Trotting, it is undisputed that Frontier Sports Enterprises, Inc., which owns 23,600 of the 189,788 outstanding Fox Valley shares, is wholly owned by Louis Jacobs and his sons and daughters of Buffalo, New York. The Jacobs family owns an additional 22,800 shares of Fox Valley Trotting individually, bringing their interests to approximately 24% Of the stock outstanding. It was also shown that the Jacobs family owns and operates the Emprise Corporation, which at the time of these hearings had been recently convicted of conspiracy and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

During that portion of the hearings devoted to consideration of the Egyptian Trotting application, it was shown that this applicant did not own any racetrack, but was the lessee of the Washington Park premises for the 1973 season.

At the conclusion of the hearings a majority of the Board voted to grant licenses to certain applicants and allot dates; written findings and orders according with the majority action were thereafter entered. Among the successful applicants were Balmoral Jockey Club, Balmoral Park Trot, Fox Valley Trotting and Egyptian Trotting, and it is the award of licenses and dates to these applicants which is here challenged.

On December 18, 1972, the Attorney General, in his representative capacity for the State, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County seeking: (1) administrative review of the Board's action, (2) a declaratory judgment that such action was improper, and (3) an injunction barring implementation of the racing schedule as awarded. The Board filed as its answer the complete transcript of the hearings; certain of the defendants filed motions to dismiss, alleging Inter alia that the Attorney General had no standing to institute suit in this cause. All such motions were denied, and by agreement of the parties the case proceeded as to count I, the complaint for administrative review. The circuit court filed a written opinion and subsequently entered an order affirming the action of the Board as: (1) not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) supported by substantial evidence; (3) not arbitrary, unconscionable, or capricious; and (4) not contrary to the statutes.

Since the People, on the relation of the Attorney General, are the sole appellant, and the objection to the right of the Attorney General to take this appeal is also urged here, it is that question which must be first considered. The Administrative Review Act provides:

'Every action to review a final administrative decision shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint and the issuance of summons within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon The party affected thereby.' (Emphasis added.) Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110, par. 267.

'Unless review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner herein provided, The parties to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from obtaining judicial review of such administrative decision.' (Emphasis added.) Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110, par. 265.

Thus the issue becomes whether the Attorney General was a party to the proceedings before the Illinois Racing Board in the sense in which that phrase is used in the statute, and whether he, in his representative capacity for the State, was adversely affected by the order propounded. In support of that standing, appellant invites our attention to statutory language to be found in section 3.3 of the Horse Racing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 8, par. 37c--4), which provides that the Attorney General shall 'assist and participate' in certain hearings at the invitation of the Board; he also notes that the 'appearance' of the Attorney General is recorded with that of other parties in transcripts and other materials now before us. While we acknowledge the appellant's participation in the licensing hearings, we believe more persuasive grounds exist for upholding his right to invoke the provisions of the Administrative Review Act and to appeal an adverse decision thereunder. In fact, the plaintiff's examination of witnesses before the Board and independent introduction of evidence is entirely consonant with his role as attorney and counselor to the Illinois Racing Board, a public entity appropriately advised by the Attorney General (see Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 14, par. 4), and does not necessarily connote the status of an independent participant. We conclude that his relationship to the Board was a multifaceted one, reflecting the Attorney General's unique involvement with the conduct of horse racing in Illinois.

Certain of the Attorney General's statutory duties are clear: he is specifically authorized to enforce the provisions of the Horse Racing Act, and shall assist the Board at its invitation during certain hearings under both the Horse Racing Act and the Harness Racing Act. (...