Search for: "NCAA v. Board of Regents" Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2020, 11:35 am by Dennis Crouch
Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 8:01 pm by Kate Howard
The petition of the day is: NCAA v. [read post]
Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the court held that the NCAA could, in the interest of preserving the character and quality of college sports, impose restrictions upon players that would otherwise breach antitrust laws. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 12:50 pm by Holly Brezee
Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 5:23 pm by Amy Howe
Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, involving an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s plan to televise college football games. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 3:00 pm by Brad Dixon
Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) did not bless the NCAA amateurism rules as a matter of law. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 10:49 am by Barry, Barall & Spinella, LLC
Board of Regents, removed the NCAA’s control over television rights with the ruling from the Supreme Court. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 3:00 pm by Marc Edelman
Board of Regents, the high court held that an NCAA bylaw intended to ban colleges that appeared in more than a certain number of televised football games was illegal because it "curtail[ed] output and blunt[ed] the ability of [NCAA] member institutions to respond to consumer preference. [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 3:36 pm by Jacob Wirz
Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1984). [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 10:45 am by Cornell Law Library
Board of Regents -- Hunting the shark : the road to NCAA v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 3:00 pm
Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), in which the Supreme Court applied a “quick look” to a NCAA restriction on each individual college’s right to broadcast their football games. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 11:36 am by Ilya Somin
The NCAA acknowledges that this Court already analyzed (and struck down) some of its restraints as anticompetitive in Board of Regents. [read post]