Federal Baseball Club v. National League Information & Federal Baseball Club v. National League Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
 Baseball Singles, Baseball Dating, Baseball Club s
Baseball Singles, Baseball Dating, Baseball Clubs
fitness-singles.com
  League City TX Dentist - League City Dental Care - League City Dentistry...
League City TX Dentist - League City Dental Care - League City Dentistry...
clearcreekdentalcare.com
 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL SPRING TRAINING CAMPS IN FLORIDA
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL SPRING TRAINING CAMPS IN FLORIDA
funandsun.com
 
Federal Baseball Club v. National League
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 1922
Decided May 29, 1922
Full case name Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs et al.
Citations 259 U.S. 200 (more)
Holding
Major League Baseball is not considered interstate commerce under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Holmes, joined by unanimous court

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Major League Baseball was exempt from the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

After the Federal League folded in 1915, most of the Federal League owners had been bought out by owners in the other Major Leagues, or had been compensated in other ways (for example, the owner of the St. Louis Federal League team had been permitted to buy the St. Louis Browns). The owner of the Baltimore Federal League club (the Baltimore Terrapins) had not, and sued the National League, the American League and other defendants, including several Federal League officials for conspiring to monopolize baseball by destroying the Federal League. At trial, the defendants were found jointly liable, and damages of $80,000 assessed, which was tripled to $240,000 under the provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act (equivalent to $2.8 Million in 2007).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial verdict, and held that baseball was not subject to the Sherman Act, and the case was duly appealed to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that "the business is giving exhibitions of base ball[sic], which are purely state affairs"; that is, that baseball was not interstate commerce for the purposes of the Sherman Act.

The decision was reaffirmed in Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1952), and Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972).

[edit] See also




Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots