Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs
| Decision Date | 29 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 204,204 |
| Citation | 26 A.L.R. 357,66 L.Ed. 898,259 U.S. 200,42 S.Ct. 465 |
| Parties | FEDERAL BASE BALL CLUB OF BALTIMORE, Inc., v. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASE BALL CLUBS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles A. Douglas, of Washington, D. C., Wm. L. Marbury, of Baltimore, Md., and William L. Rawls, Hugh H. Obear, Jo. V. Morgan, and Charles S. Douglas, all of Washington, D. C., and L. Edwin Goldman, of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-205 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Benjamin S. Minor, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error.
This is a suit for threefold damages brought by the plaintiff in error under the Anti-Trust Acts of July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 7, 26 Stat. 209, 210 (Comp. St. § 8829), and of October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 4, 38 Stat. 730, 731 (Comp. St. § 8835d). The defendants are the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs and the American League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, unincorporated associations, composed respectively of groups of eight incorporated base ball clubs, joined as defendants; the presidents of the two Leagues and a third person, constituting what is known as the National Commission, having considerable powers in carrying out an agreement between the two Leagues; and three other persons having powers in the Federal League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, the relation of which to this case will be explained. It is alleged that these defendants conspired to monopolize the base ball business, the means adopted being set forth with a detail which, in the view that we take, it is unnecessary to repeat.
The plaintiff is a base ball club incorporated in Maryland, and with seven other corporations was a member of the Federal League of Professional Base Ball Players, a corporation under the laws of Indiana, that attempted to compete with the combined defendants. It alleges that the defendants destroyed the Federal League by buying up some of the constituent clubs and in one way or another inducing all those clubs except the plaintiff to leave their League, and that the three persons connected with the Federal League and named as defendants, one of them being the President of the League, took part in the conspiracy. Great damage to the plaintiff is alleged. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $80,000 in the Supreme Court and a judgment for treble the amount was entered, but the Court of Appeals, after an elaborate discussion, held that the defendants were not within the Sherman Act. The appellee, the plaintiff, elected to stand on the record in order to bring the case to this Court at once, and thereupon judgment was ordered for the defendants. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, 269 Fed. 681, 688, 50 App. D. C. 165. It is not argued that the plaintiff waived any rights by its course....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollywood Baseball Ass'n v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 93647.
...the Secretary or his delegate at or before the hearing or a rehearing. 9. See Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356; Federal Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200. Cf. Radovich v. Nat. Football League, 352 U.S. 445; United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236. 10. We have g......
-
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo
...to exclude the work of the legal profession from the category of trade or commerce. See, e.g., Federal Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 209, 42 S.Ct. 465, 466, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922); Rosenthal v. State Bar Examining Committee, 116 Conn. 409, 414, 165 A. 211 (1933). CUTPA antedated, by s......
-
North American Co v. Securities and Exchange Commission
...Ann.Cas. 1031; Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 252 U.S. 436, 40 S.Ct. 385, 64 L.Ed. 649; Federal Base Ball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898, 26 A.L.R. 357. Without them, North American would be unable to float the various security issues of its own or ......
-
United States v. Shubert
...the Government's complaint on the authority of the Toolson decision, and Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898.7 The case is here on direct appeal under the Expediting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 29, 15 U.S.C.A. §......
-
Minor League Teams Take A Swing At Baseball's Antitrust Exemption
...or antitrust exemption, first dealt to them by the Supreme Court in Fed. Baseball Club, Inc. v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922) and subsequently reaffirmed in Toolson v. N.Y. Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 356, 74 S. Ct. 78, 78 (1953) and Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258......
-
Minor League Teams Take A Swing At Baseball's Antitrust Exemption
...or antitrust exemption, first dealt to them by the Supreme Court in Fed. Baseball Club, Inc. v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922) and subsequently reaffirmed in Toolson v. N.Y. Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 356, 74 S. Ct. 78, 78 (1953) and Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258......
-
Developments In US Antitrust Litigation'2021 Year In Review
...of Baseball, No. 1:21-cv-10876 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2021). 69. Fed. Baseball Club of Baltimore v. Nat'l League of Pro. Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 70. Complaint ' 4, Casey's Distributing Inc. v NFL Inc., No. 3:21-cv-09905 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) ("The time is at hand to cast the baseball ......
-
Developments In US Antitrust Litigation'2021 Year In Review
...of Baseball, No. 1:21-cv-10876 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2021). 69. Fed. Baseball Club of Baltimore v. Nat'l League of Pro. Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 70. Complaint ' 4, Casey's Distributing Inc. v NFL Inc., No. 3:21-cv-09905 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) ("The time is at hand to cast the baseball ......
-
Regulated Industries
...on S. 2373 Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 1575. 259 U.S. 200 (1922). 1576. Id. at 208-09. 1577. The plaintiff, the only remaining team in baseball’s Federal League, had secured a $240,000 verdict after......
-
Legal arguments that had better be avoided.
...487, were not overruled, but, on rehearing, were "withdrawn." See 354 U. S. at 1. The case of Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200, still stands as to baseball (Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U. S. 356), but not as to theatrical productions (United States v. Shubert, 34......
-
Table of Cases
...’ d, 935 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1991), 73, 94 F Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), 1, 2 Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986), 43, 68, 77, 113, 115, 118 Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 501 F......
-
Antitrust and Sports
...15 The Supreme Court has also held that state antitrust regulation of baseball is prohibited by the dormant Commerce Clause. 16 11. 259 U.S. 200 (1922). 12. Id. at 208-09. 13. 346 U.S. 356, 357 (1953) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of antitrust claim against professional team “[w]ithout ......