Pacific Turf Club v. Cohn
| Decision Date | 22 May 1951 |
| Citation | 231 P.2d 527,104 Cal.App.2d 371 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PACIFIC TURF CLUB, Inc. v. COHN. Civ. 14100. |
Leo R. Friedman, San Francisco, for appellant.
Donahue, Richards, Rowell & Gallagher, and George E. Thomas all of Oakland, for respondent.
Plaintiff had a temporary injunction restraining defendant from attending races at the track operated by plaintiff. The hearing was had on the vertified complaint, oral testimony and the demurrer and opposition filed by defendant.
The proceeding rests on the rules of the California Horse Racing Board adopted pursuant to statute. Business & Professions Code, sec. 19561. The pertinent provisions of these rules read:
It was alleged in the complaint and not denied that the California Horse Racing Board had instructed plaintiff to bar defendant Cohn from its track and informed plaintiff that if it did not do so its license to operate the track would be revoked. The conviction of defendant of a felony under section 337a of the Penal Code and the appeal then pending from the judgment was stipulated to at the hearing.
Appellant relies on sections 51 to 53 of the Civil Code which generally grant citizens equal rights of admission and treatment in places of public accommodation and amusement, and, sec. 53, prohibits the denial of admission to anyone who presents a proper ticket or tenders the price thereof. Exceptions are made including one 'of lewd or immoral character'. It has been held under those sections that the State in the exercise of the police power had plenary authority to regulate public race tracks and places of public amusement, Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing Board, 31 Cal.2d 401, 407, 408, 189 P.2d 17, 3 A.L.R.2d 90, and that this power has been validly delegated by section 25a of Article IV of the Constitution and sections 19561, and 19420, Bus. & Prof. Code to the California Horse Racing Board. The question presented is therefore the general one of the relation of a regulation under the police power and civil liberty rights granted by Constitution or statute.
The submission in this case was set aside awaiting the decision by the Supreme Court in Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 36, Cal.2d 734, 227 P.2d 449, 452, a case similar to ours, in which Orloff, who had been convicted of violation of 337a, Penal Code and other offenses sought an injunction against the Los Angeles Turf Club to prevent it from barring him from admission to the horse races at Santa Anita Park, which the court denied. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
The Supreme Court held that as far as exclusion of undesirables from attendance at horse racing was concerned only the provisions of the Civil Code, §§ 51-54, were controlling; that the more rigid rules of the California Horse Racing Board applied only to 'the regulation of the licensee and its employees in the conduct of the races and of wagering on the results thereof.' The opinion states: 'However, insofar as fhey govern the licensee in exercising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flores v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.
...at pages 739-741, 227 P.2d at pages 453-454. The reasoning of the Orloff case was subsequently applied in Pacific Turf Club, Inc. v. Cohn, 1951, 104 Cal.App.2d 371, 231 P.2d 527, where an order granting a temporary injunction to prevent a previously convicted bookmaker from entering a race ......
-
Staino v. Com., Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Com'n
...its reasons for its determination.2 Mr. Staino cites: Bonomo v. Louisiana Downs, Inc., 337 So.2d 553 (1976); Pacific Turf Club v. Cohn, 104 Cal.App.2d 371, 231 P.2d 527 (1951); Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 36 Cal.2d 734, 227 P.2d 449 (1951); and, Narragansett Racing Association v. Mazza......
-
Lage v. Birnbaum
...most of his assignments of error in his brief and argument, and we therefore need not consider them. Marquis v. Drost, 155 Conn. 327, 330, 231 P.2d 527. We need only consider the assignments that the conclusions are not supported by the subordinate facts and that the court erred in ruling o......
-
Gardner v. Vic Tanny Compton, Inc.
...to the public (Stone v. Board of Directors of City of pasadena, 47 Cal.App.2d 749, 118 P.2d 866); a race track (Pacific Turf Club v. Cohn, 104 Cal.App.2d 371, 231 P.2d 527; Suttles v. Hollywood Turf Club, 45 Cal.App.2d 283, 114 P.2d 27); a hotel (Piluso v. Spencer, 36 Cal.App. 416, 172 P. 4......