Legal Opinion
Hudson v. Texas Racing Commission
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 10, 2006No. 04-51431PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
This appeal involves an issue of first impression, whether the Texas absolute insurer rule, 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 311.104(b), which provides, inter alia, that “[a] trainer shall ensure that a horse ... that runs a race while in the care and custody of the trainer ... is free from all prohibited drugs, chemicals, or other substance,” violates the due process clause. We hold that it does not and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
James Hudson is licensed by the Texas Racing Commission (the “Commission”) as an owner and trainer of race horses. 1 On June…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Barry v. BarchiSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. BalintSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Bryan v. City of Madison MSCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maloney Gaming Management, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany ParishCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Anthony Adamo v. Michael DillonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013