Saenz v. University Interscholastic League
| Decision Date | 29 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2415. Summary Calendar.,73-2415. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 487 F.2d 1026 |
| Parties | E. G. SAENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jack N. Price, Longview, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Jack Sparks, Robert L. Oliver, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for University Interscholastic League.
Bernard Ladon, Kirk Patterson, San Antonio, Tex., for Ridgway.
James P. Hart, James H. Keahey, Austin, Tex., for Lenhart.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In this section 1 Sherman anti-trust action, Saenz appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees and dismissing his action with prejudice. Saenz urges three points in this appeal: (1) that the trial court erred in determining that the University Interscholastic League (UIL) is an agency of the State of Texas and thus exempt from section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) that appellee Lenhart, as State Director of the UIL's Slide Rule Contest, is similarly immunized from suit by virtue of his status as a state official; and (3) that the remaining defendant, L. R. Ridgway Enterprises, Inc., alone could not have violated the anti-trust laws in view of the immunity enjoyed by the UIL and Lenhart. We affirm.
In June 1972, Saenz brought a treble-damage action alleging that the defendants had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by acting in concert to secure UIL's rejection of Saenz's product, the "Accuraspeed Slide Rule," for use in interscholastic competition among Texas public schools. He alleged that Lenhart had defined UIL regulations arbitrarily to exclude the Accuraspeed slide rule, while sanctioning usage of the "Texas Speed Rule," which was distributed throughout Texas by Ridgway and affiliated enterprises. According to Saenz, UIL's adverse ruling stemmed from the defendants' conspiracy to thwart Accuraspeed's potential competition with Ridgway's product and originated in a financial relationship between Ridgway and Lenhart. The complaint alleged that as a result of this undefined economic tie, Lenhart acted on behalf of Ridgway's interests by securing UIL's cooperation in disallowing use of Saenz's Accuraspeed slide rule, although the Accuraspeed was better designed for prompt solution of competitive examination problems.
UIL and Lenhart filed motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that, as a state agency and state official respectively, UIL and Lenhart were immune from suit under the Sherman Act. The defendants also contended that the complaint failed to state facts demonstrating any restraint upon interstate commerce. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that UIL and Lenhart were clothed with immunity from anti-trust liability as instrumentalities or officers of the state, and that Ridgway could not alone violate the Sherman Act. The court also found that the purpose and activity of the UIL is non-commercial and non-interstate in nature, and thus its conduct is outside the province of the federal anti-trust laws.
We deem it unnecessary to consider the economic nature or interstate effect of UIL's activities, inasmuch as we find that the League is a governmental entity exempt from the Sherman Act. Although the UIL was originally organized in 1910 as a voluntary association of public schools, the League subsequently became part of a bureau of the Extension Division of the University of Texas at Austin, an institution which is inarguably a state agency or governmental body. Admittedly, the organization is somewhat hybrid in form in that it is in the nature of a "service" offered annually by the University's Bureau of Public School Service and has a nonpermanent, voluntary membership. Despite its unorthodox structure, however, the UIL clearly is imbued with ample characteristics to warrant the trial court's determination that the organization is an agency of the State of Texas. The UIL is organized and administered annually as part of the Division of Extension of the University's Bureau of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation
...362 F.2d 52, 56 (1 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 320, 17 L.Ed.2d 226 (1966); see also Saenz v. University Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5 Cir. 1973). 17 The same court had adopted the correlative of that principle in Metro Cable Co. v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 51......
-
City of Lafayette, Louisiana v. Louisiana Power Light Company
...District Court granted the motion, holding that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Saenz v. University Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (1973), required dismissal, notwithstanding that "[t]hese plaintiff cities are engaging in what is clearly a business activ......
-
Hennessey v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...recognized by the Supreme Court in Parker v. Brown,317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). Also see Saenz v. University Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (CA5 1973). Here again, however, the Goldfarb decision dictates rejection of the argument. Under Goldfarb the governmental c......
-
Caribe Trailer Systems v. Puerto Rico Maritime
...34 See also Padgett v. Louisville & Jefferson City Air Bd., 492 F.2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Saenz v. University Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973); E. W. Wiggins Airways, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 362 F.2d 52 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 947, 87 ......
-
General Application of the Doctrine
...Charley’s Taxi Radio Dispatch , 810 F.2d at 875-76 (involving state department of transportation); Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026, 1027-28 (5th Cir. 1973) (involving division of state university). 142. Neo Gen , 187 F.3d at 28-29; see also Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 90......
-
Table of Cases
...487 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2007), 170 Robins v. Amoco Prod. Co., 952 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1992), 144 S Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973), 64 Sandcrest Outpatient Servs. v. Cumberland County Hosp. Sys., 853 F.2d 1139 (4th Cir. 1988), 4 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d ......
-
Table of Cases
...487 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2007), 200 Robins v. Amoco Prod. Co., 952 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1992), 170 S Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973), 76 Sandcrest Outpatient Servs. v. Cumberland County Hosp. Sys., 853 F.2d 1139 (4th Cir. 1988), 4 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d ......
-
Chapter IV. General Application of the Doctrine
...Charley’s Taxi Radio Dispatch , 810 F.2d at 875-76 (involving state department of transportation); Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026, 1027-28 (5th Cir. 1973) (involving division of state university). 93. Neo Gen , 187 F.3d at 28-29. See also Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903......