Legal Opinion
O'Daniel v. Ohio State Racing Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 20, 1974No. 73-731PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
The principal question presented in this case is whether BC-13-02, the “insurer rule” of the Buies of Bacing of the Ohio State Bacing Commission, which imposes strict accountability upon a trainer for the condition of the horse he enters in a race, is constitutional, valid and within the scope of authority granted the Ohio State Bacing Commission by the G-enera? Assembly.
The Ohio insurer rule essentially imposes liability, without fault, upon a trainer of record who enters into a race a horse which has been administered any chemical or drug.
Many states have promulgated similar insurer rules:…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Bell v. BursonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs for Port of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Goesaert v. ClearySupreme Court of the United States · 1948
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Casse v. New York State Racing & Wagering BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Fioravanti v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- DIV. OF PARI-MUTUEL ETC. v. CapleSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
- Berry v. Michigan Racing CommissionerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Cowans v. Ohio State Racing Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.