Colorado Racing Commission v. Conner, 70--150

• Decision Date: 08 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 70--150,70--150
• Citation: 30 Colo.App. 72,490 P.2d 75
• Parties: COLORADO RACING COMMISSION et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. Lee CONNER and D. G. Matz, Defendants in Error. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 75

490 P.2d 75

30 Colo.App. 72

COLORADO RACING COMMISSION et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. Lee CONNER and D. G. Matz, Defendants in Error.

No. 70--150.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Sept. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harold L. Neufeld, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Keating & Rosenbaum, Robert B. Keating, Marvin G. Rosenbaum, Denver, for defendants in error.

DUFFORD, Judge.

We shall refer to the plaintiffs in error collectively as the 'Commission' and to the defendants in error as 'Conner and Matz.'

This action arises from an order of the District Court reversing a ruling of the Commission to the effect that Conner and Matz's horse, 'Best of the Blues,' had fouled and interfered with 'Miss Grumbles,' a horse owned by John Norton, M.D., during the running of the seventh race at Centenial Race Track on August 7, 1969. The substance of the Commission's ruling is not under attack in this action. The only questions are procedural ones concerning the standing of Dr. Norton to seek a ruling by the Commission and the jurisdiction of the Commission to enter its ruling.

It is undisputed that no complaint or objection concerning the running of the subject race was ever made to the race track stewards by the owner, trainer, or jockey of Miss Grumbles. Dr. Norton did request the Commission to investigate the race after the results of that race were officially announced. Nonetheless, the Commission's hearing, which was held following Dr. Norton's direct complaint to the Commission, proceeded on the basis of a hearing under Rule 3.02(b) of the Rules Governing Horse Racing promulgated by the Commission. That rule provides for hearing before the Commission in the instance '(w)here any person shall be aggrieved by the action and order of the Stewards.' On these facts, the District Court determined that the lodging of an objection to the race with the stewards by a person authorized to lodge objections was a condition precedent to review by the Commission, and that the Commission had no jurisdiction to enter its finding as to interference by 'Best of the Blues.'

The ruling of the trial court was incorrect, and we reverse. Under the provisions of C.R.S.1963, 129--2--5(1), the Commission is charged with the duty of regulating and supervising all race meets involving pari-mutuel wagering which are held in the State of Colorado. The mandate of that statute also requires the...