Legal Opinion
Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing Board
California Supreme Court
Decided February 3, 1948No. L. A. 20332PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
The California Horse Racing Board appeals from a judgment in a mandamus proceeding the effect of which is to cancel its order suspending a trainer’s license for six months. The judgment was entered upon the failure of the board to answer after its demurrer to the petition had been overruled.
W. L. Sandstrom sought the writ of mandate on November 18, 1946, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. He alleged *404that he was a duly licensed trainer of race horses possessing license 111 for the year 1946; that on October 7, 1946, and pursuant to notice theretofore given, the California Horse Racing Board…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Tot v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Heiner v. DonnanSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Schlesinger v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. AgnewSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the BlindCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Southern California Jockey Club, Inc. v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1951
- DeGroot v. Arizona Racing CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
- State Ex Rel. Morris v. West Virginia Racing CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.