Essay about Legal Brief

* National football league was not a single entity. * Because they did not share profits and loses. * Days after the raiders announced they were leaving Oakland to go to LA the city of Oakland bought an eminent domain action to acquire the team. * Went to trial in may of 1983 and the court entered judgment for the raiders * On appeal it was remanded to the trial court, with directions to consider certain remaining objectives to plaintiff’s suit which had not previously been addressed by the court. * On remand, the court once again entered judgment for the raiders on ground that: * 1. The city’s stated purpose in acquiring the team was not public use * 2. The city’s action was invalid under the antitrust laws * 3. The city’s conduct constituted undue interference with interstate commerce and therefore violated the commerce clause of the United State Constitution. * Appeals court affirmed the trial courts decision * First fount that the league’s success was dependent upon it’s ability to conduct business nationwide. * Next found that uniform national regulation was appropriate in this area because of local laws, such as eminent domain statues, only take into consideration parochial interests- sometimes at the expense of larger nation concerns * The use of eminent domain legislation as a response to a relocation threat is still likely in the future. * After the verdict of the jury, but before the ninth circuit decision the Baltimore colts owner Robert Isray considered moving his team to Indianapolis. * And in the same time period negations with Maryland and Baltimore officials about keeping the colts in Baltimore * The city of Baltimore passed a bill in the Maryland senate stating that the city of Baltimore could condemn professional sports franchises under the doctrine of eminent domain * NFL held special meeting about this and decided they would take no action with respect to the move by the colts. * Later that day Irsay officially announced the proposed move of the colts to Indianapolis. * The league did not approve or disapprove * On march 28, 1984 Irsay learned about the bill mentioned above from a newspaper * That night he executed the offer by Indianapolis and loaded all the properties into mayflower moving vans and left for Indianapolis. * On March 30 the Maryland legislature enacted the eminent domain statues, and the city of Baltimore more immediately initiated state court condemnation proceedings to acquire the Colts franchise. * Colt filled to federal court to enjoin the eminent domain action in Baltimore. * The suit was dismissed. * The majority opinion in Raiders advised the NFL that “to withstand antitrust scrutiny, restrictions on team movement should be more closely tailored to serve the needs inherent in producing the NFL product and competing with other forms of entertainment.” * Nine months after the colts move the Philadelphia Eagles, contemplated relocation as a means of improving its financial situation. * They were not happy with their stadium lease and their personal financial problems. * Eagles owner Leonard Tose began negotiating with real estate developer from Phoenix a deal to sell a minority interest in the eagles * He denied initial reports of the move, but rumors were fueled when Tose and his daughter traveled to Phoenix in late November * Commissioner Rozelle filed suit against Tose and the Eagles in federal court in Philadelphia, seeking a declaration that an NFL evaluation of a propsed move, u n der “orderly league procedures” * A few days after Tose signed a new deal with Philadelphia officials that kept the Eagles in Philadelphia. * NFL Constitution and by-laws * No member club shall have the right to transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city, with within or outside of its home

Show More

A Brief Note On Legal Risk And Regulation In Mongolia

How To Brief A Case Fall 2014 Essay example

Case Brief Case

Public Interest Group Analysis

Great Expectations Essay

Thurgood Marshall Research Paper

Introduction To Law School Studying

What Do Paralegals Do

Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Regulatory Compliance Essay