holding that urinalysis testing of jockeys does not violate the Fourth Amendment
Summary of this case from Amalgamated Transit Union v. Okla. CityNo. 86-555.
December 1, 1986, October TERM, 1986.
C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 2d 118.
holding that urinalysis testing of jockeys does not violate the Fourth Amendment
Summary of this case from Amalgamated Transit Union v. Okla. Citydetermining that a constitutional right does not exist to display advertising at a municipally owned sports complex
Summary of this case from Aubrey v. City of Cincinnatiupholding drug testing of jockeys and other horse racing employees in heavily regulated racing industry
Summary of this case from Ensor v. Rust Engineering Co.upholding random search of jockeys for drugs and alcohol under administrative search exception
Summary of this case from Local 194A v. Bridge Com'nexpressing doubt that Minneapolis Metro-dome is a public forum by government designation
Summary of this case from Paulsen v. County of Nassaudiscussing Carey
Summary of this case from Timberlake by Timberlake v. Bentonlimiting recovery to actual losses where regulatory taking is temporary balances public and private interests
Summary of this case from Lucas v. S.C. Coastal CouncilFull title:INTERNATIONAL FRUIT PRODUCTS CO., INC., ET AL. v. BRYANT ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Dec 1, 1986
Contrary to the argument put forth by SEPTA in this appeal, it is by now well settled that government drug…
Perez v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning AppealsIn her reply brief, Perez argued BOZA used the improper standard of review when reviewing her appeal. Citing…