Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Maryland Racing Commission

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 23, 1991No. 485, September Term, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILNER, Chief Judge.

Appellants Goldman and Capuano are trainers of thoroughbred horses and are licensed as such by the Maryland Racing Commission. In a consolidated proceeding, the Commission found that they had violated certain regulations proscribing the administration of drugs to horses entered in races and suspended their respective licenses for 15 days. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County upheld the Commission’s action whereupon they have brought this appeal complaining that (1) the regulations are unconstitutional both facially and as applied to them and (2) the findings of the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. DeGroot v. Arizona Racing CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  2. Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Mahoney v. ByersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  4. State Ex Rel. Morris v. West Virginia Racing CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Maryland Racing Commission v. McGeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION v. BelottiCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Fox v. Comptroller of TreasuryCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Hudson v. Texas Racing CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API