L.A. Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League by Julie Wollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc Presentation en-us 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC 2026-01-15 19:45:38 UTC hello@padlet.com San Francisco Seals v. NHL juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780531 The San Francisco Seals v. NHL was used during this case. Although the outcome was different, like the NFL the NHL had to prove to the court that they were a single entity and therefore could not conspire against itself.  In San Francisco Seals v. NHL the NHL was ruled a single entity. ]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780531 Ruling juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780533 The court ruled that the NFL was not a single entity and did in fact violate Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the Los Angeles Coliseum and Oakland Raiders. ]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780533 Defendant’s Argument juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780535 The Defendant argued that the NFL is a single entity that makes then unable to conspire to restrain trade under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. The defendant also argued that Rule 4.3, which requires a unanimous agreement of 28 teams in the League when a team attempts to relocate in the home territory of another team, does not violate under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. ]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780535 Plaintiff's Argument juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780537 The Plaintiffs argued that the restriction of relocation displayed in Rule 4.3 of Article IV of the NFL constitution was an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, that prohibits every agreement, conspiracy, or other concerted activity in restraint of trade. They also argued that the NFL’s restriction of relocation enabled both parties from entering a new market. ]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780537 Court Opinion and Explanation juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780538 The Court Ruled in favor of the plaintiff the Los Angeles Coliseum and Oakland Raiders based on the claim that the NFL breached implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. The court awarded the Los Angeles Coliseum $4.86 Million dollars and the Oakland Raiders $11.55 million in damages. ]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780538 Background juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780539 In 1978 The Los Angeles Rams decided to relocate to Anaheim leaving Los Angeles Coliseum searching for a new tenant. At the same time in 1978 the Oakland Raiders franchise lease with the Oakland Coliseum had expired in where Al Davis then turned to LA Coliseum. On March 1, 1980, Al Davis and the LA Coliseum signed an agreement outlining the terms of the Raiders' relocation to Los Angeles, but the NFL denied the plans of the relocation. The Los Angeles Coliseum and Oakland Raiders then filed a lawsuit against the NFL claiming that the restriction of the relocation was considered unlawful. 
 
]]> 2019-04-24 15:23:46 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353780539 Presentation juliewollrath https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353826934 2019-04-24 17:00:23 UTC https://padlet.com/juliewollrath/ejfhdhdepxdc/wish/353826934