Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc.

282 F.2d 680, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3735, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,806

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1960

DocketNo. 16816

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 282 F.2d 680 (Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., 282 F.2d 680, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3735, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,806 (9th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the authority of Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64, and Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456.

Appellant tries to bring professional baseball under the antitrust laws as boxing was done by United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290, and football by Radovich.

It asserts and pleads that conditions of restraint in professional baseball are now more aggravated than at the times of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 and Toolson. Also, it thinks Radovich and other decisions now undercut Toolson and Federal Baseball. But as we read Toolson and Radovich the Supreme Court is still holding to the proposition that if professional baseball is to be brought within the pale of federal antitrust laws, the Congress must do it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the authority of Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64, and Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456.

Appellant tries to bring professional baseball under the antitrust laws as boxing was done by United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290, and football by Radovich.

It asserts and pleads that conditions of restraint in professional baseball are now more aggravated than at the times of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 and Toolson. Also, it thinks Radovich and other decisions now undercut Toolson and Federal Baseball. But as we read Toolson and Radovich the Supreme Court is still holding to the proposition that if professional baseball is to be brought within the pale of federal antitrust laws, the Congress must do it.

Portland Baseball Club, Inc., a Corporation v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., a Corporation, the Case in This Court and Below Was Captioned 'Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Ford C. Frick, Commissioner of Baseball' Inasmuch as Mr. Frick Was Never Served and Has Not Appeared, We Substitute for Him in the Caption the Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., the First in the Complaint Who Was a Party to the Judgment of Dismissal Below

282 F.2d 680 (First Circuit, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F.2d 680, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3735, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portland-baseball-club-inc-v-baltimore-baseball-club-inc-ca9-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack