Legal Opinion

Maryland Racing Commission v. McGee

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 1, 1976No. [No. 76, October Term, 1956.]PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.

The Maryland Racing Commission appeals from an order of mandamus requiring it to restore the license it had taken from a trainer of race horses after a finding that a drug had been administered to a winning horse trained by him.

In the exercise of its statutory duties, the Commission had duly promulgated Rule 111, providing that: “No person shall administer, or cause or knowingly permit to be administered, or connive at the administration of, any drug to any horse entered for a race. Every owner, trainer, or groom must guard, or cause to be guarded, each horse owned, trained or attended by him…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. United States v. BalintSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  4. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. MathewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Dickinson-Tidewater, Inc. v. Supervisor of AssessmentsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  2. Bernstein v. Real Estate CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  3. McBriety v. CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORECourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. A. H. Smith Sand & Gravel Co. v. Department of Water ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  5. Jenkins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API