727 S.E.2d 799
W. Va.2011Background
- CTR & S appeals a Kanawha County circuit court injunction barring CTR & S from excluding jockeys during their administrative appeal of a West Virginia Racing Commission sanction.
- Racing Commission suspended each jockey’s permit for 30 days and fined $1,000 each after weigh-out misconduct findings by track stewards.
- CTR & S notified Reynolds it was ejecting him from the premises; Reynolds filed a verified TRO and injunctive relief seeking to stay the suspension pending hearing.
- Circuit court granted a TRO/stay extending relief to CTR & S’s ejectment issue; CTR & S later moved to confirm expiration of the TRO.
- Racing Commission conducted a de novo hearing; it adopted findings suspending jockeys and imposing final sanctions; CTR & S sought to exclude jockeys during appeal, arguing common law right to exclude and lack of statutory control.
- The majority affirms the circuit court’s decision; Justice Benjamin and Justice Ketchum dissent, asserting CTR & S may retain greater exclusion rights absent legislative or constitutional support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CTR & S has an unfettered common law right to eject permit holders. | CTR & S asserts full private-property right to exclude. | Racing Commission holds plenary authority over licensing and ejections; review on appeal is required. | No; ejection is subject to Racing Commission review under statutes and regulations. |
| Whether the circuit court could stay the Racing Commission order under WV Code 19-23-17. | § 19-23-17 prohibits stays of Racing Commission orders. | The court may exercise discretion consistent with statute and due process. | The circuit court’s stay was permissible under statutory framework and due process considerations. |
| Whether CTR & S was in active concert or participation with the Racing Commission under Rule 65(d). | CTR & S acts with the Racing Commission to restrain jockeys’ rights. | CTR & S’s actions were independent, not a joint action with the Commission. | The court properly found CTR & S in active concert or participation with the Racing Commission for the injunction purposes. |
| Whether the injunction and stay complied with Rule 65 requirements (e.g., bond) and proper procedure. | Procedural requirements were unmet, including bond and notice. | Injunction pursued to preserve status quo during appeal; procedural safeguards applied. | Procedural requirements were satisfied for purposes of the preliminary injunction in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633 (1913) (recognizes racetrack’s common-law right to exclude patrons)
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (license/permit constitutes property interest protected by due process)
- Camden-Clark Mem’l Hosp. Corp. v. Turner, 212 W.Va. 752 (2002) (standard for injunctions; three-pronged review framework)
- State ex rel. Morris v. West Virginia Racing Commission, 133 W.Va. 179 (1949) (police power over racing with public welfare considerations)
- Smith v. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ., 170 W.Va. 593 (1982) (statutory context governs interpretation of statutes with common law)