Legal Opinion
Tamelleo v. New Hampshire Jockey Club, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided July 19, 1960No. 4814PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlandin, J.
The plaintiffs argue that there is no common-law right in this state to operate a pari-mutuel race track and, assuming there is, that this state does not recognize the common-law rule that the proprietor of a private enterprise, not a public calling, can discriminate without cause among his patrons.
It is firmly established that at common law proprietors of private enterprises such as theaters, race tracks and the like, may admit or exclude anyone they choose. Woollcott v. Shubert, 217 N. Y. 212, 222; Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N. Y. 249, cert. denied 332 U. S. 761; anno. 1 A. L.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Woollcott v. . ShubertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Marrone v. Washington Jockey ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Greenfeld v. Maryland Jockey ClubCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
3Cited by15 opinions
- Stiller v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1974
- Phillips v. GrahamIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Flores v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1961
- Guntert v. City of StocktonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Catrone v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.