Legal Opinion
Standard "Tote" Inc. v. Ohio State Racing Commission
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division
Decided May 15, 1954No. Nos. 189156, 189157, 189158, 189159, 189160PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*23OPINION
By BARTLETT, J.
1. THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN ADOPTING AND AMENDING RULES 41, 49, 50 and 257, HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH BY THE STATE RACING COMMISSION, IN ITS ORDER OF JANUARY 12, 1954, RELATING TO THE ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE AFORESAID RULES.
2. THAT SAID RULES 41, 49, 50 and 257, APPEALED FROM IN THE AFORESAID CASES, REPRESENT A REASONABLE AND LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF SAID STATE RACING COMMISSION; THAT SAID RULES ARE VAT.TP; AND THAT THE ORDER OF SAID COMMISSION IN ADOPTING AND AMENDING SAID RULES, IS HEREBY AFFIRMED
Each of these cases constitute an appeal…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Rohan v. Detroit Racing AssociationMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Mattson v. Hollywood Turf ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- In re Estate of HamlinOhio Probate Court of Franklin County · 1949
- Streeper v. Auditorium Kennel ClubSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Racing Commission v. RobertsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
- Ohio State Federation of Licensed Nursing Homes v. Public Health CouncilOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
- Huff v. Ohio State Racing Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
- In re Adoption of Rules & Regulations Relative to Driver Training Schools, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1958