15 U.S.C. § 3005

Liability and damages

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person accepting any interstate off-track wager in violation of this chapter shall be civilly liable for damages to the host State, the host racing association and the horsemen’s group. Damages for each violation shall be based on the total of off-track wagers as follows:(1) If the interstate off-track wager was of a type accepted at the host racing association, damages shall be in an amount equal to that portion of the takeout which would have been distributed to the host State, host racing association and the horsemen’s group, as if each such interstate off-track wager had been placed at the host racing association.(2) If such interstate off-track wager was of a type not accepted at the host racing association, the amount of damages shall be determined at the rate of takeout prevailing at the off-track betting system for that type of wager and shall be distributed according to the same formulas as in paragraph (1) above.(Pub. L. 95–515, § 6, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1814.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, Inc., 989 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, Inc., 989 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 3005 . And, moreover, the statute employs a damage calculation formula, see id.”

Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “The KHBPA, citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 3005 4 and 3006 5 , claimed that Turfway Park and the other defendants had violated the Act by accepting interstate off-track wagers on Turfway Park’s races without the KHBPA’s consent.”

Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 3005 (only the out-of-state racetrack, out-of-state racing authority, and out-of-state horsemen’s group could bring such an action).”

New Suffolk Downs Corp. v. Rockingham Venture, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 1190 (D.N.H. 1987). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 3005 . Although it is neither a host state, a host racing association, or a horsemen’s group *1193 as hereinabove defined in the Act, Suffolk contends that it is entitled to assert an implied private right of action to enforce the provisions of the Act.”

Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 802 F. Supp. 662 (D.R.I. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 3006 , and anyone violating the IHA is liable for damages only to the identical three parties, 15 U.S.C. § 3005 . Where, as here, “a statute expressly provides a remedy, courts must be especially reluctant to provide additional remedies.”

New England Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Massachusetts Thoroughbred Horsemen's Ass'n, 210 F. Supp. 3d 270 (D. Mass. 2016). “” 15 U.S.C. § 3005 . Thus, the only entity that can be liable for damages under the IHA is the one that accepts interstate off-track wagers without having obtained the proper consent, and the only damages remedy available is a share of the proceeds from interstate off-track…”

Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing, 832 F. Supp. 1097 (E.D. Ky. 1993). “The receiving tracks must ascertain at their peril from thousands of miles away which, if any, horsemen’s group represents a majority of owners and trainers on any racing day.”

Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “15 U.S.C. § 3005 . By establishing this complete, exclusive regulatory structure, Congress occupied the field of regulating interstate off-track wagering.”

Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “at *5 (alterations in original) (quoting 15 U.S.C. §§ 3005 , 3006(a)); see also Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.