Imprescia v. State Racing Commission
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. In deciding whether the commission’s conclusion that the plaintiff* had violated Rules of Horse Racing numbered 519 and 524 was supported by "substantial evidence” (G. L. c. 30A, §§ 1[6], 14), we must not only consider the laboratory reports and other evidence presented to the commission, as well as the reasonable inferences which could be drawn therefrom, but must also give due weight to the *840commission’s own experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge in the field of horse racing. G. L. c. 30A, § 14. Bournewood Hosp. Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 371…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wolf v. Commissioner of Public WelfareMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Bournewood Hospital, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against DiscriminationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Bond v. Commissioner of Public SafetyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
- Young v. Mobil Oil Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Commonwealth v. RosaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Faith Assembly of God of South Dennis & Hyannis, Inc. v. State Building Code CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Taunton Greyhound Ass'n v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980