Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 551.104 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 551.104 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 551.104 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 551.104

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS
Chapter 551
SLOT MACHINES
View Entire Chapter
551.104 License to conduct slot machine gaming.
(1) Upon application and a finding by the commission after investigation that the application is complete and the applicant is qualified and payment of the initial license fee, the commission may issue a license to conduct slot machine gaming in the designated slot machine gaming area of the eligible facility. Once licensed, slot machine gaming may be conducted subject to the requirements of this chapter and rules adopted pursuant thereto.
(2) An application may be approved by the commission only after the voters of the county where the applicant’s facility is located have authorized by referendum slot machines within pari-mutuel facilities in that county as specified in s. 23, Art. X of the State Constitution.
(3) A slot machine license may be issued only to a licensed pari-mutuel permitholder, and slot machine gaming may be conducted only at the eligible facility at which the permitholder is authorized under its valid pari-mutuel wagering permit to conduct pari-mutuel wagering activities.
(4) As a condition of licensure and to maintain continued authority for the conduct of slot machine gaming, the slot machine licensee shall:
(a) Continue to be in compliance with this chapter.
(b) Continue to be in compliance with chapter 550, when applicable, and maintain the pari-mutuel permit and license in good standing pursuant to chapter 550.
(c) If a thoroughbred permitholder, conduct no fewer than a full schedule of live racing or games as defined in s. 550.002(10). A permitholder’s responsibility to conduct live races or games shall be reduced by the number of races or games that could not be conducted due to the direct result of fire, strike, war, hurricane, pandemic, or other disaster or event beyond the control of the permitholder. Beginning July 1, 2025, each thoroughbred permitholder in compliance with this chapter is not required to pay an annual license fee to the commission as a condition of renewal.
(d) Upon approval of any changes relating to the pari-mutuel permit by the commission, be responsible for providing appropriate current and accurate documentation on a timely basis to the commission in order to continue the slot machine license in good standing. Changes in ownership or interest of a slot machine license of 5 percent or more of the stock or other evidence of ownership or equity in the slot machine license or any parent corporation or other business entity that in any way owns or controls the slot machine license shall be approved by the commission prior to such change, unless the owner is an existing holder of that license who was previously approved by the commission. Changes in ownership or interest of a slot machine license of less than 5 percent, unless such change results in a cumulative total of 5 percent or more, shall be reported to the commission within 20 days after the change. The commission may then conduct an investigation to ensure that the license is properly updated to show the change in ownership or interest. No reporting is required if the person is holding 5 percent or less equity or securities of a corporate owner of the slot machine licensee that has its securities registered pursuant to s. 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a-78kk, and if such corporation or entity files with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission the reports required by s. 13 of that act or if the securities of the corporation or entity are regularly traded on an established securities market in the United States. A change in ownership or interest of less than 5 percent which results in a cumulative ownership or interest of 5 percent or more shall be approved by the commission prior to such change unless the owner is an existing holder of the license who was previously approved by the commission.
(e) Allow the commission and the Department of Law Enforcement unrestricted access to and right of inspection of facilities of a slot machine licensee in which any activity relative to the conduct of slot machine gaming is conducted.
(f) Ensure that the facilities-based computer system that the licensee will use for operational and accounting functions of the slot machine facility is specifically structured to facilitate regulatory oversight. The facilities-based computer system shall be designed to provide the commission and the Department of Law Enforcement with the ability to monitor, at any time on a real-time basis, the wagering patterns, payouts, tax collection, and such other operations as necessary to determine whether the facility is in compliance with statutory provisions and rules adopted by the commission for the regulation and control of slot machine gaming. The commission and the Department of Law Enforcement shall have complete and continuous access to this system. Such access shall include the ability of either the commission or the Department of Law Enforcement to suspend play immediately on particular slot machines if monitoring of the system indicates possible tampering or manipulation of those slot machines or the ability to suspend play immediately of the entire operation if the tampering or manipulation is of the computer system itself. The computer system shall be reviewed and approved by the commission to ensure necessary access, security, and functionality. The commission may adopt rules to provide for the approval process.
(g) Ensure that each slot machine is protected from manipulation or tampering to affect the random probabilities of winning plays. The commission or the Department of Law Enforcement shall have the authority to suspend play upon reasonable suspicion of any manipulation or tampering. When play has been suspended on any slot machine, the commission or the Department of Law Enforcement may examine any slot machine to determine whether the machine has been tampered with or manipulated and whether the machine should be returned to operation.
(h) Submit a security plan, including the facilities’ floor plan, the locations of security cameras, and a listing of all security equipment that is capable of observing and electronically recording activities being conducted in the facilities of the slot machine licensee. The security plan must meet the minimum security requirements as determined by the commission under s. 551.103(1)(i) and be implemented prior to operation of slot machine gaming. The slot machine licensee’s facilities must adhere to the security plan at all times. Any changes to the security plan must be submitted by the licensee to the commission prior to implementation. The commission shall furnish copies of the security plan and changes in the plan to the Department of Law Enforcement.
(i) Create and file with the commission a written policy for:
1. Creating opportunities to purchase from vendors in this state, including minority vendors.
2. Creating opportunities for employment of residents of this state, including minority residents.
3. Ensuring opportunities for construction services from minority contractors.
4. Ensuring that opportunities for employment are offered on an equal, nondiscriminatory basis.
5. Training for employees on responsible gaming and working with a compulsive or addictive gambling prevention program to further its purposes as provided for in s. 551.118.
6. The implementation of a drug-testing program that includes, but is not limited to, requiring each employee to sign an agreement that he or she understands that the slot machine facility is a drug-free workplace.

The slot machine licensee shall use the Internet-based job-listing system of the Department of Commerce in advertising employment opportunities. Each slot machine licensee shall provide an annual report to the Florida Gaming Control Commission containing information indicating compliance with this paragraph in regard to minority persons.

(j) Ensure that the payout percentage of a slot machine gaming facility is at least 85 percent.
(5) A slot machine license is not transferable.
(6) A slot machine licensee shall keep and maintain permanent daily records of its slot machine operation and shall maintain such records for a period of not less than 5 years. These records must include all financial transactions and contain sufficient detail to determine compliance with the requirements of this chapter. All records shall be available for audit and inspection by the commission, the Department of Law Enforcement, or other law enforcement agencies during the licensee’s regular business hours.
(7) A slot machine licensee shall file with the commission a monthly report containing the required records of such slot machine operation. The required reports shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the commission and shall be due at the same time as the monthly pari-mutuel reports are due to the commission, and the reports shall be deemed public records once filed.
(8) A slot machine licensee shall file with the commission an audit of the receipt and distribution of all slot machine revenues provided by an independent certified public accountant licensed under chapter 473 verifying compliance with all financial and auditing provisions of this chapter and associated rules. The audit must include verification of compliance with all statutes and rules regarding all required records of slot machine operations. Such audit must be filed within 120 days after the end of the slot machine licensee’s fiscal year.
(9) The commission may share any information with the Department of Law Enforcement, any other law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over slot machine gaming or pari-mutuel activities, or any other state or federal law enforcement agency the commission or the Department of Law Enforcement deems appropriate. Any law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over slot machine gaming or pari-mutuel activities may share any information obtained or developed by it with the commission.
(10)(a)1. No slot machine license or renewal thereof shall be issued to an applicant holding a permit under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering meets of thoroughbred racing unless the applicant has on file with the commission a binding written agreement between the applicant and the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc., governing the payment of purses on live thoroughbred races conducted at the licensee’s pari-mutuel facility. In addition, no slot machine license or renewal thereof shall be issued to such an applicant unless the applicant has on file with the commission a binding written agreement between the applicant and the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, Inc., governing the payment of breeders’, stallion, and special racing awards on live thoroughbred races conducted at the licensee’s pari-mutuel facility. The agreement governing purses and the agreement governing awards may direct the payment of such purses and awards from revenues generated by any wagering or gaming the applicant is authorized to conduct under Florida law. All purses and awards shall be subject to the terms of chapter 550. All sums for breeders’, stallion, and special racing awards shall be remitted monthly to the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, Inc., for the payment of awards subject to the administrative fee authorized in s. 550.2625(3).
2. No slot machine license or renewal thereof shall be issued to an applicant holding a permit under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering meets of quarter horse racing unless the applicant has on file with the commission a binding written agreement between the applicant and the Florida Quarter Horse Racing Association or the association representing a majority of the horse owners and trainers at the applicant’s eligible facility, governing the payment of purses on live quarter horse races conducted at the licensee’s pari-mutuel facility. The agreement governing purses may direct the payment of such purses from revenues generated by any wagering or gaming the applicant is authorized to conduct under Florida law. All purses shall be subject to the terms of chapter 550.
(b) The commission shall suspend a slot machine license if one or more of the agreements required under paragraph (a) are terminated or otherwise cease to operate or if the commission determines that the licensee is materially failing to comply with the terms of such an agreement. Any such suspension shall take place in accordance with chapter 120.
(c)1. If an agreement required under paragraph (a) cannot be reached prior to the initial issuance of the slot machine license, either party may request arbitration or, in the case of a renewal, if an agreement required under paragraph (a) is not in place 120 days prior to the scheduled expiration date of the slot machine license, the applicant shall immediately ask the American Arbitration Association to furnish a list of 11 arbitrators, each of whom shall have at least 5 years of commercial arbitration experience and no financial interest in or prior relationship with any of the parties or their affiliated or related entities or principals. Each required party to the agreement shall select a single arbitrator from the list provided by the American Arbitration Association within 10 days of receipt, and the individuals so selected shall choose one additional arbitrator from the list within the next 10 days.
2. If an agreement required under paragraph (a) is not in place 60 days after the request under subparagraph 1. in the case of an initial slot machine license or, in the case of a renewal, 60 days prior to the scheduled expiration date of the slot machine license, the matter shall be immediately submitted to mandatory binding arbitration to resolve the disagreement between the parties. The three arbitrators selected pursuant to subparagraph 1. shall constitute the panel that shall arbitrate the dispute between the parties pursuant to the American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Rules and chapter 682.
3. At the conclusion of the proceedings, which shall be no later than 90 days after the request under subparagraph 1. in the case of an initial slot machine license or, in the case of a renewal, 30 days prior to the scheduled expiration date of the slot machine license, the arbitration panel shall present to the parties a proposed agreement that the majority of the panel believes equitably balances the rights, interests, obligations, and reasonable expectations of the parties. The parties shall immediately enter into such agreement, which shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) and permit issuance of the pending annual slot machine license or renewal. The agreement produced by the arbitration panel under this subparagraph shall be effective until the last day of the license or renewal period or until the parties enter into a different agreement. Each party shall pay its respective costs of arbitration and shall pay one-half of the costs of the arbitration panel, unless the parties otherwise agree. If the agreement produced by the arbitration panel under this subparagraph remains in place 120 days prior to the scheduled issuance of the next annual license renewal, then the arbitration process established in this paragraph will begin again.
4. In the event that neither of the agreements required under subparagraph (a)1. or the agreement required under subparagraph (a)2. are in place by the deadlines established in this paragraph, arbitration regarding each agreement will proceed independently, with separate lists of arbitrators, arbitration panels, arbitration proceedings, and resulting agreements.
5. With respect to the agreements required under paragraph (a) governing the payment of purses, the arbitration and resulting agreement called for under this paragraph shall be limited to the payment of purses from slot machine revenues only.
(d) If any provision of this subsection or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this subsection or chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this subsection are severable.
History.s. 1, ch. 2005-362; s. 3, ch. 2007-252; s. 20, ch. 2009-170; ss. 4, 5, ch. 2010-29; s. 409, ch. 2011-142; s. 30, ch. 2021-271; s. 49, ch. 2022-7; s. 226, ch. 2024-6; s. 13, ch. 2024-115; s. 82, ch. 2025-208.

F.S. 551.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 551.104 on CourtListener

Amendments to 551.104


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 551.104

Total Results: 14  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008).

Cited 396 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 14 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 587, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25187, 2008 WL 5220263

...F.3d at 1162-63 (citing McLaughlin, 486 U.S. at 133, 108 S. Ct. at 1681). Federal regulations define “reckless disregard” as the “‘failure to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the [FLSA].’” Id. at 1163 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.104). Family Dollar raises several challenges to the jury’s willfulness finding....
Copy

Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008).

Cited 29 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 394, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1848, 2008 WL 220070

...Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 , 108 S.Ct. 1677, 1681 , 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988). The Code of Federal Regulations defines reckless disregard as the “failure to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the Act.” 5 C.F.R. § 551.104 ....
Copy

Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 518 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2008).

Cited 9 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2008 WL 624625

...McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S. Ct. 1677, 1681 (1988). The Code of Federal Regulations defines reckless disregard as the “failure to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the Act.” 5 C.F.R. § 551.104....
Copy

Maria Teresa Davila v. Maria Claudia Menendez, 717 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2013).

Cited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1417, 2013 WL 2460199, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11616

... Case: 12-11049 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 11 of 14 blameworthy “if the employer should have inquired further into whether [his] conduct was in compliance with the Act, and failed to make adequate further inquiry,” 29 C.F.R. § 578.3(c)(3); see 5 C.F.R. § 551.104....
Copy

Jacques v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 15 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9838, 2009 WL 2151905

...House of Representatives Staff Analysis, HB 1-B, at 6 (Dec. 8, 2005). We find additional support for the Division's interpretation from an examination of the entire legislative scheme. A slot machine licensee must maintain a pari-mutuel permit pursuant to the provisions of chapter 550. § 551.104(4)(b), Fla....
Copy

Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2008).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 14 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 82, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60757, 2008 WL 2967170

...Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988)). As defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, "reckless disregard" is the "failure to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the Act." Id. at 1163 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.104)....
Copy

Dep't of State, etc. v. Florida Greyhound Ass'n, Inc., etc., 253 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2018).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...Article X, section 23 imposes no continuing requirement for those facilities to conduct dog racing or any other pari-mutuel activity in order to operate slot machines. That requirement is imposed by statute. - 15 - § 551.104(4)(c), Fla....
Copy

Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Standardbred Owners, 983 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2038400

...could not be construed as the requisite affirmative act to invoke the sword-wielder exception. The Association responded that it would be too costly to litigate in Leon County. It argued that the legislature's failure to include Standardbreds in subsection 551.104(10)(a), Florida Statutes (2006) was simply an oversight....
...lied. It found that there was a deprivation of a property right and merit in the Association's claim of a violation of constitutional rights. On appeal, the Division argues that the Association's real complaint is with the parties' interpretation of section 551.104(10)(a)....
...facility. . . . All sums for breeders', stallion, and special racing awards shall be remitted monthly to the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, Inc., for the payment of awards subject to the administrative fee authorized in s. 550.2625(3). § 551.104(10)(a), Fla....
...The question to ultimately be decided is whether the statute's contract requirement applies to the Florida Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, Inc. Here, the Association maintains it is entitled to a portion of the Park's slot machine proceeds under section 551.104(10)(a)....
Copy

Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Sec., Inc. (11th Cir. 2021).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...An employer acts with reckless disregard if it 20 USCA11 Case: 18-14496 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 21 of 44 “fail[s] to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the Act.” Id. at 1163 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.104). We see no clear error in the district court’s finding that Akal did not willfully violate the FLSA....
Copy

Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Sec., Inc. (11th Cir. 2021).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...An employer acts with reckless disregard if it 20 USCA11 Case: 18-14496 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 21 of 44 “fail[s] to make adequate inquiry into whether conduct is in compliance with the Act.” Id. at 1163 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.104). We see no clear error in the district court’s finding that Akal did not willfully violate the FLSA....
Copy

Ocala Breeders' Sales Co., Inc. v. Calder Race Course Inc., Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, & Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...In 2005 the Florida Legislature enacted chapter 551, Florida Statutes, entitled “Slot Machines,” which governs the operation of slot machines at eligible facilities. A license to conduct slot machine gaming is tied to a pari-mutuel wagering permit-holder. See § 551.104(3), Fla....
...as it had the two years prior to the approval of the constitutional amendment. The appellants specifically identify five statutes which could support their interpretation of the term “eligible facility” in section 551.201(4): sections 550.002(11) and (23); section 551.104(3); and sections 551.104(4)(b) and (4)(c). We cannot read any of these statutes to mean a slot machine permit-holder would be required to continue to conduct the same form of racing or games under which it obtained its slots permit. The appellants also int...
...Defining “facility” too narrowly would not allow the slot machines to be located in connected buildings or anywhere on the premises that is not within the footprint of the actual racetrack or fronton. We, as did the Division, reject this narrow interpretation. The Division’s plain meaning interpretation of section 551.104, Florida Statutes, is also supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Department of State v....
Copy

Gretna Racing, LLC. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof. etc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...3d DCA 1976) (“Being an exception to a general prohibition, any such statutory provision is normally construed strictly against the one who attempts to take advantage of the exception.”). In sum, little commends the reading that Gretna Racing places on section 551.104(2), and essentially every meaningful means of statutory interpretation favor the Department’s view, which is itself accorded great weight....
...For these reasons, the denial of Gretna Racing’s request for a slot machine license was proper. C. Finally, even if the statute could be read as Gretna Racing suggests, the Gadsden County vote was neither a “referendum” nor did it provide voter approval as section 551.104(2) requires, which states that a “majority of voters have approved slot machines at such facilities in a countywide referendum” to be eligible....
...over all slot machines outside of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. Why would the Legislature offer the Seminole Tribe exclusivity over slot machines while at the same time authorizing up to seventeen Florida Counties the ability to intrude on this exclusivity? By my reading of section 551.104(4), it did not. 36 I therefore fully concur in those parts of Judge Makar’s opinion regarding the interpretation of section 551.102(4), Florida Statutes....
...basis of factors which are potentially applicable to others” because “a number of Florida counties may by future referendum acquire racing establishments . . . within the class covered”). 43 for licensure pursuant to section 551.104(2) (or the first clause of section 551.102(4)) because live racing or games did not occur there in “each of the last two calendar years before” article X, section 23 was adopted....
...The parties stipulated in the proceedings below that “Hialeah’s application [which the Department granted after the statutory amendment at issue here] was submitted under the second (2nd) clause of § 551.102(4), F.S., enacted effective 7/1/10,” not under section 551.104(2). Properly read, the second clause, like the third clause on which Gretna Racing relies, expands the universe of eligible facilities beyond the initial seven addressed in article X, section 23 and section 551.104(2)....
...such a referendum may be held.” Id. Attorney General Opinion 2012–01, on which the Department relied, given in response to a letter in which Department Secretary Lawson requested the Attorney General’s views, states in part: Section 551.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that the Division “may issue a license to conduct slot machine gaming in the designated slot machine gaming area of the eligible facility.” (e...
...Legislature provided that referenda “in any other county” should await the events on which the effective date depended. The Department argues it is precluded from issuing a slot machine license to 54 Gretna Racing because section 551.104(2) “currently allows the Division to approve applications for slot machine permits only from pari-mutuel facilities in [Miami–Dade and Broward C]ounties as specified by article X, section 23, of the Florida Constitution.” The actual text of section 551.104(2) provides, however, that an “application may be approved by the division only after the voters of the county where the applicant’s facility is located have authorized by referendum slot machines within pari-mutuel facilities in that county as specified in s....
...Like Gretna Racing, its eligibility depends on the statutory amendment, not the constitutional amendment. The Department granted Hialeah Race Track’s application without a murmur, and it should have treated Gretna Racing’s application in like fashion. The Department’s reliance on sections 551.101 and 551.104(2) to deny Gretna Racing’s application is as unjustified under familiar rules of statutory construction as it is inconsistent....
Copy

Gretna Racing, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...3d DCA 1976) (“Being an exception to a general prohibition, any such statutory provision is normally construed strictly against the one who attempts to take advantage of the exception.”). In sum, little commends the reading that Gretna Racing places on section 551.104(2), and essentially every meaningful means of statutory interpretation favor the Department’s view, which is itself accorded great weight....
...For these reasons, the denial of Gretna Racing’s request for a slot machine license was proper. C. Finally, even if the statute could be read as Gretna Racing suggests, the Gadsden County vote was neither a “referendum” nor did it provide voter approval as section 551.104(2) requires, which states that a “majority of voters have approved slot machines at such facilities in a countywide referendum ” to be eligible....
Copy

Gretna Racing, LLC v. Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., etc., 225 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 2017).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 593, 2017 WL 2210389, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1084

...e effective date of this amendment. Id. § 23(a). The provision specified that slot machines will be authorized for qualifying facilities upon approval by the voters, id., and directed the Legislature to adopt implementing legislation, id. § 23(b). Section 551.104(1), Florida Statutes (2013), provides for the issuance by the Division of licenses “to conduct slot machine gaming.” Under section 551.104(1), the Division is authorized to issue such licenses to an “eligible facility”—a term that is defined in section 551.102(4). But section 551.104(2) goes on to establish an additional condition for the issuance of licenses: “An application may be approved by the division only after the voters of the county where the applicant’s facility is located have authorized by referendum slot machines within pari-mutuel facilities in that county as specified in s. 23, Art. X of the State Constitution.” So by its plain terms, section 551.104(2) limits licenses to facilities in counties where the voters have approved slot machines as provided by article X, section 23—which does not extend beyond Miami-Dade and Broward Counties....
...trict regarding those grounds, and the question of .great public importance certified by the First District. II. The Division denied a slot machine gaming license to Gretna Racing based on the Division’s conclusion that the requirements of neither section 551.104(2) nor the third clause of section 551.102(4) had been satisfied. The Division ruled that the issuance of a license to Gretna Racing was foreclosed by section 551.104(2) because that section limits licenses to facilities in counties where the voters have approved slot machines as provided by article X, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, and Gadsden County is not within the ambit of article X, section 23. The Division thus rejected an argument made by Gretna Racing, that, the limitation imposed, by section 551.104(2) was implicitly repealed by the Legislature’s subsequent adoption of the second and third clauses of section 551.102(4)....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.