Central New York Basketball, Inc. (Syracuse Nationals) v. Barnett
case brief summary
181 N.E.2d 506 (1961)
CASE FACTS
An athlete played basketball for the team of the New York corporation. When the athlete failed to sign a new contract, the New York corporation filed an action that sought to enjoin him from providing his services to an Ohio corporation and to enjoin the Ohio corporation from the interfering with his contract with the New York corporation. The New York corporation contended that the athlete agreed that it had the right to renew his original contract for one succeeding year if a new contract was not signed. The athlete and Ohio corporation contended that the original contract was void because it provided for perpetual service.
HOLDING
CONCLUSION
A permanent injunction was granted to enjoin the athlete's performance of services as a basketball player for the Ohio corporation and to enjoin the Ohio corporation's interference with the athlete's contract with the New York corporation during the season.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
181 N.E.2d 506 (1961)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff New York corporation filed an
action for injunctive relief against defendants, athlete and Ohio
corporation, to enjoin the athlete from providing his services as a
basketball player to an Ohio corporation. Plaintiff also sought to
enjoin the Ohio corporation from the interference of the athlete's
contract with the New York Corporation.CASE FACTS
An athlete played basketball for the team of the New York corporation. When the athlete failed to sign a new contract, the New York corporation filed an action that sought to enjoin him from providing his services to an Ohio corporation and to enjoin the Ohio corporation from the interfering with his contract with the New York corporation. The New York corporation contended that the athlete agreed that it had the right to renew his original contract for one succeeding year if a new contract was not signed. The athlete and Ohio corporation contended that the original contract was void because it provided for perpetual service.
HOLDING
- The court held that
- (1) the evidence demonstrated that the athlete and Ohio corporation's actions were in violation of the athlete's contract with the New York corporation,
- (2) there was no adequate remedy at law because the damage to the New York corporation was irreparable, and
- (3) the New York corporation was properly before the court because it was authorized to bring its action under the laws of Ohio.
CONCLUSION
A permanent injunction was granted to enjoin the athlete's performance of services as a basketball player for the Ohio corporation and to enjoin the Ohio corporation's interference with the athlete's contract with the New York corporation during the season.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment