Legal Opinion
American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided July 3, 2001No. CIV. 00-2388-PHX-RCBPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER, AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge.
This is a case with potentially serious implications for the future of gaming in Arizona. A synopsis of the court’s decision can be found beginning on page 1029.
The Plaintiffs are permittees of horse and dog racing facilities in Arizona. Am. Compl. (doc. # 45) ¶¶ 1-2. The Plaintiff-Intervenor Tucson Greyhound Park, Inc., is a permittee for a dog racing enterprise. Am. Compl. (doc. # 52) ¶ 1. The Defendants include state authorities responsible for negotiating gaming compacts with Indian tribes and enforcing…
2Cases cited139 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Panzer v. DoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- Artichoke Joe's v. NortonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2002
- American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. HullCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Flynt v. California Gambling Control CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Village of Union SpringsDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2004
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.