Title: Ocala Breeders’ Sales Co. v. Florida Gaming Centers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95-561
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: August 16, 2001

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC95561
____________
OCALA BREEDERS’ SALES COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant,
vs.
FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS, INC., etc.,
Appellee.
[August 16, 2001]
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal a decision of the First District Court of Appeal declaring
invalid section 550.615(9), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).  See Ocala Breeders’
Sales Company, Inc. v. Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA
1999).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.  For the following
reasons, we affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal.  
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ocala Breeders Sales Company, Inc. (Breeders) owns a permanent
1 Section 550.615(9) was repealed during the 2000 legislative session.  See ch.
2000-354, § 44 Laws of Florida. 
-2-
thoroughbred horse racing and sales facility in Marion County, Florida, and has
conducted horse sales there since 1975.  In 1990, Breeders applied for and
received a license to conduct intertrack wagering pursuant to section 550.61(8),
Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), an earlier version of section 550.615(9),1 containing
the same licensure criteria.  Breeders has met each requirement every year since first
applying, and has had its license renewed yearly.
In July of 1995, Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., d/b/a Ocala Jai Alai,
(Jai Alai) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Breeders and the State
of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-
Mutuel Wagering (the Division), asking the trial court to declare section 550.615(9)
unconstitutional.  Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-
mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always
prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders. 
After the trial court declared section 550.615(9) unconstitutional as a special
law, Breeders and the Division jointly appealed to the First District Court of
Appeal.  In March of 1999, the First District court issued an opinion affirming the
trial court and finding the statute unconstitutional as a special law and violative of
2  On February 5, 1999, the Division granted Breeders a new license under
section 550.6308, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), instead of section 550.615, to
conduct intertrack wagering for the remainder of fiscal year 1998-1999.  Breeders then
began to operate under this license.
-3-
equal protection.  In a separate order, it denied Breeders’ suggestion of mootness2
and declared this issue one of great public importance.  After its motions for
rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied, Breeders appealed to this Court.
DISCUSSION
The contested statutory scheme outlines several requirements that applicants
must fulfill to qualify for an intertrack wagering license.  Section 550.615(9)(a)
provides:  
Upon application to the division on or before January 31
of each year, any quarter horse permit holder that has
conducted at least 15 days of thoroughbred horse sales at
a permanent sales facility for at least 3 consecutive years,
and conducted at least one day of nonwagering
thoroughbred racing, with a purse structure of at least
$250,000 per year for 2 consecutive years prior to such
application, shall be issued a license to conduct intertrack
wagering for thoroughbred racing for up to 21 days in
connection with thoroughbred sales, to conduct intertrack
wagering at such permanent sales facility between
November 1 and May 8 of the following year, to conduct
intertrack wagering at such permanent sales facility
between May 9 and October 31 at such times and on
such days as any jai alai permit holder in the same county
is not conducting live performances, and to conduct
intertrack wagering under the provisions of this
3 Breeders acquired the required quarter horse permit in 1985 and built its own
permanent facility soon thereafter.
-4-
subsection during the weekend of the Kentucky Derby,
the Preakness, the Belmont, and a Breeders’ Cup Meet
that is conducted before November 1 and after May 8,
subject to conditions set forth in this subsection,
provided that no more than one such license may be
issued.
Subsection (b) outlines the procedure to be used by the Division if there is
more than one applicant.  It states:
If more than one permit holder applies, the division shall
determine which permit holder shall be granted the
license.  In making its determination, the division shall
consider the length of time the permit holder has been
conducting thoroughbred horse sales in this state, the
length of time the applicant has had a permanent location
in this state, and the volume of sales of thoroughbred
horses in this state, giving the greater weight to the
applicant that meets these criteria.
Subsection (e) provides an exception to the quarter horse racing requirement,
stating:  “For each year such quarter horse permitholder must obtain the license set
forth in paragraph (a), any provisions relating to suspension or revocation of a
quarter horse permit for failure to conduct live quarter horse racing do not apply.”
The First District found that these statutory provisions in tandem created an
impenetrable barrier to all intertrack wagering applicants except Breeders.3  We
agree.  As that court found, under section 550.615(9)(b), also known as the
4  Article III, section 10 states:  
No special law shall be passed unless notice of intention to
seek enactment thereof has been published in the manner
provided by general law.  Such notice shall not be
necessary when the law, except the provision for
referendum, is conditioned to become effective only upon
approval by vote of the electors of the area affected.  
-5-
“tiebreaker provision,” Breeders would always prevail against another applicant
because it has the longest history as a quarter horse permit holder, owns a
permanent horse sales facility, and has generated a greater volume of horse sales
than any other permit holder, and its failure to conduct quarter horse racing is
excused by subsection(e).  As did the First District, we find this statute
unconstitutional as a special law enacted under the guise of a general law in
violation of article III, section 10 of the Florida Constitution.4   
We also hold, consistent with the First District, that this statute violates the
right to equal protection of the law.  It is well settled under Florida law that all
similarly situated persons are equal under the law and must be treated alike.  See St.
Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So. 2d 961, 971 (Fla. 2000); Palm Harbor
Special Fire Control Dist. v. Kelly, 516 So. 2d 249, 251 (Fla.1987).  Moreover, all
statutory classifications that treat one person or group differently than others must
bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective and cannot be
-6-
discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive.  See St. Mary’s Hospital, 769 So. 2d at
971; Abdala v. World Omni Leasing, Inc., 583 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991);  In re
Estate of Greenberg, 390 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1980).
The First District found that section 550.615 was enacted to increase
revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by providing protection to  thoroughbred
horse breeders from the state policy against off-track betting, but that no rational
relationship existed between this purpose and the detailed licensure criteria in the
disputed statute.  For instance, prior to the enactment of section 550.615(9), horse
breeders had not been involved in pari-mutuel wagering, but that subsection
required applicants to have conducted thoroughbred horse sales and racing. 
Moreover, no reasons are advanced in the statute for narrowing the field of
applicants to those who hold quarter horse permits, nor is there a basis for
requiring that a prospective licensee conduct “at least one day of nonwagering
thoroughbred racing, with a purse structure of at least $250,000 per year for two
consecutive years.”  § 550.615(9)(a).  Curiously, Breeders is the only business
entity that had ever obtained a nonwagering thoroughbred racing permit.  In
addition, there appears to be no rational basis for the exemption given to the holder
of a quarter horse permit that qualifies for an intertrack wagering license even if the
quarter horse permit is otherwise subject to revocation under section 550.615(9)(e). 
-7-
In West Flagler Kennel Club, Inc. v. Florida State Racing Commission, 153
So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1963), where petitioners, owners of pari-mutuel establishments, also
complained of equal protection violations, we found the subject statute, chapter 61-
1940, Laws of Florida, also employed arbitrary criteria.  In finding the statute
violative of equal protection, we said:
[T]his legislation . . . [grants] to certain permit holders,
designated in terms not susceptible of generic application
now or in the future, the right to conduct harness racing
in Broward County upon compliance with its conditions. 
The act is therefore arbitrary and not uniform or equal in
its specification of the thing as well as the county
affected.
  
West Flagler Kennel Club, 153 So. 2d at 8.  Likewise, no rational basis exists for
the criteria used in section 550.615 and it, therefore, violates the equal protection
rights of other potential licensees such as Jai Alai.
For these reasons, we affirm the First District’s decision finding section
550.615(9) unconstitutional as a special law.   
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
An Appeal from the District Court of Appeal - Statutory or Constitutional Invalidity
-8-
First District - Case No. 1D97-4783 
Daniel S. Pearson, William F. Hamilton, and Linda Collins Hertz of Holland & Knight
LLP, Miami, Florida,
for Appellant
Robert P. Smith, James S. Alves, and Gabriel E. Nieto of Hopping Green Sams &
Smith, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; and William P. Cagney, III, P.A., Delray, Florida,
for Appellee