Tepler v. Frick, 208
| Decision Date | 01 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 208,Docket 22611.,208 |
| Citation | 204 F.2d 506 |
| Parties | TEPLER v. FRICK et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Frederic A. Johnson, William M. Kunstler and Michael J. Kunstler, New York City, for appellant.
Willkie, Owen, Farr, Gallagher & Walton, New York City, Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Smith, Chicago, Ill., and Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, for Ford C. Frick, Chicago National League Ball Club and Cleveland Baseball Co., appellees.
Shearman & Sterling & Wright, New York City, Willard M. L. Robinson, New York City, and Winston, Strawn, Black & Towner, Chicago, Ill. (John A. Wilson and MacIlburne Van Voorhies, New York City, of counsel), for Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., appellee.
Thayer & Gilbert, New York City, Harold A. Segall, New York City (Edgar C. Morrison, New York City, of counsel), for Philip K. Wrigley, appellee.
Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff is a baseball pitcher who overworked his arm in 1944, while pitching for a minor league club in Tennessee. His verbose complaint purports to allege five claims or causes of action, one based apparently on negligence and four on violation of the anti-trust laws. The claim founded on negligence is obviously barred by limitations whether the applicable statute be that of Tennessee or of New York. The treble damage claims founded on the theory that organized baseball violates the antitrust laws fail completely to show any proximate causal relation between the alleged violations and the injury to plaintiff's arm. See Monopsony in Manpower: Organized Baseball Meets the Antitrust Laws, 62 Yale L.J. 608, note 165. Judge Edelstein dealt with the case briefly but adequately and we are content to affirm on his opinion, 112 F.Supp. 245.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamman v. United States
...for damages for personal injuries. The only case this court has found is Tepler v. Frick, S.D. N.Y.1952, 112 F.Supp. 245, aff'd 2 Cir. 1953, 204 F.2d 506. There a baseball pitcher brought action against the Commissioner of Baseball for treble damages under the antitrust laws, and for damage......
-
Robinson v. Lull
...in their pursuit of a monopoly. The alleged violations were accordingly not the direct and proximate cause of the injury. Tepler v. Frick, 2 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 506; Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 1913, 227 U.S. 8, 38, 33 S.Ct. 202, 57 L. Ed. 393. Count I thus fails to state a cause ......
-
Raubal v. Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals Corporation
...Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 431 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 877, 27 L.Ed.2d 826 (1971); Tepler v. Frick, 204 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1953); Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 235 F.Supp. 526 7 This disposition of the present motions is without prejudice to a renewa......
-
Salerno v. American League of Prof. Baseball Clubs
..."must establish a clear causal connection between the violation alleged and the injuries allegedly suffered." See also Tepler v. Frick, 204 F.2d 506 (2 Cir. 1953). Wrongful discharge of an employee does not become an antitrust violation simply because the employer is a monopolist; the priva......
-
Monopoly, Monopsony, and Vertical Collusion: Antitrust Policy and Professional Sports
...Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972); Salerno v.American League, 429 F.2d 1003 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S.1001 (1971); Tepler v. Frick, 204 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1953); Kowalski Antitrustpolicy :725for players, however, and to keep the lid on a potential salaryexplosion,baseball ownerscollusive......