ILNews

Thoroughbred rep loses appeal over license requirement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A representative of a Thoroughbred horse owners and breeders organization was required to have a license from the Indiana Horse Racing Commission to participate in the group’s activities at the state’s pari-mutuel racetracks, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The panel reversed a Marion Superior Court’s judgment that set aside and vacated an order from the commission barring Edmund Martin Jr. from racetracks because he failed to obtain a license in 2010. Part of Martin’s $41,000 salary is derived from gaming proceeds, according to the record.

As President of the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Martin had meetings at Hoosier Park in Anderson and Indiana Downs at Shelbyville. He was notified by the commission that he would be excluded from tracks until he received a license. He objected, and an administrative law found the exclusion notice was supported by evidence. The commission approved the ALJ’s order extending Martin’s exclusion until July 18, 2012.

A Marion Superior ruling vacated the order, but Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the Court of Appeals panel in Indiana Horse Racing Commission v. Edmund W. Martin, Jr., 49A02-1206-PL-512, that Martin participated in racing and therefore was required to carry a license.

“Protecting the integrity of the horse racing industry in Indiana is of utmost importance to the IHRC and the General Assembly. The industry 'has an unsavory, or at least a shadowed, reputation, growing out of a long history of fixing, cheating, doping of horses, illegal gambling, and other corrupt practices.' [Dimeo v. Griffin, 943 F.2d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 1991).] For this reason, the IHRC reasonably takes a broad view of the phrase 'participate in racing' to include those individuals who are directly or indirectly participating in pari-mutuel racing,” Mathias wrote.

"Martin has not established that the IHRC’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence. Martin was required to be licensed pursuant to Indiana Code section 4-31-6-1 and rule 5.5-1-1(a) because he was the ITOBA’s executive director in 2010 and an active participant in the ITOBA’s activities at Indiana’s horse racing tracks. For all of these reasons, we reverse the Marion Superior Court’s order setting aside and vacating the IHRC’s order excluding Martin from IHRC grounds and remand this case with instructions to reinstate the IHRC’s order and exclusion notice."    

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT