For Your Data Blalock V. Lpga Instance Brief
August 07, 2020
Edit
Blalock v. LPGA case brief summary
359 F.Supp. 1260 (1973)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff golf game professional person was suspended from the game for 1 twelvemonth for allegedly illegally moving her ball during a tournament past times defendants, the Ladies Professional Gold Association as well as its executive board. The board was made upward of other professional person women golfers who regularly competed against 1 to a greater extent than or less other inwards tournament play. Plaintiff challenged the interruption alleging that it was illegal nether the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1, because it constituted a grouping boycott as well as a per se restraint of trade. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, as well as 2 defendants, neither voting members of the board, moved for summary judgment alleging that they did non vote, as well as then they did non suspend plaintiff's license.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff professional person golfer where it constitute that her one-year interruption past times accused Ladies Professional Golf Association was an illegal restraint on trade. The courtroom denied summary judgment to 2 defendants where in that place were issues of cloth fact most their involvement.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
359 F.Supp. 1260 (1973)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment alleging that her one-year interruption past times accused Ladies Professional Golf Association was illegal under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. Two defendants moved for summary judgment inwards the same action.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff golf game professional person was suspended from the game for 1 twelvemonth for allegedly illegally moving her ball during a tournament past times defendants, the Ladies Professional Gold Association as well as its executive board. The board was made upward of other professional person women golfers who regularly competed against 1 to a greater extent than or less other inwards tournament play. Plaintiff challenged the interruption alleging that it was illegal nether the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1, because it constituted a grouping boycott as well as a per se restraint of trade. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, as well as 2 defendants, neither voting members of the board, moved for summary judgment alleging that they did non vote, as well as then they did non suspend plaintiff's license.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff finding that the interruption violated 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.
- It denied summary judgment to defendants asset that it was an resultant of cloth fact whether they acquiesced inwards the suspension.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff professional person golfer where it constitute that her one-year interruption past times accused Ladies Professional Golf Association was an illegal restraint on trade. The courtroom denied summary judgment to 2 defendants where in that place were issues of cloth fact most their involvement.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law