Search for: ""Flood v. Kuhn" OR "407 U.S. 258""
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2013, 8:43 am
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), is cited for any one proposition, it is not for its key holding — the reaffirmation of baseball’s antitrust exemption. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 11:51 am
Kuhn et al., 407 U.S. 258 (1972); and scalping in Lainer v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 2:10 pm
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972)). [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 8:44 am
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 287 (1972) [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
Flood v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 2:53 pm
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 11:44 am
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 9:55 am
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 282 (1972) (“Professional baseball is a business and it is engaged in interstate commerce”). [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 3:10 pm
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), held that MLB could uphold the reserve clause through an anti-trust exemption, however the Court admitted that the exemption was an anomaly and baseball was considered part of interstate commerce. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 10:42 am
Kuhn, 407, U.S. 258, 282 (1972).[26] Darren Rovell, Baseball's Antitrust Exemption: Q & A, ESPN.Com, . [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 3:10 pm
Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), held that MLB could uphold the reserve clause through an anti-trust exemption, however the Court admitted that the exemption was an anomaly and baseball was considered part of interstate commerce. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:52 pm
Flood v. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 7:27 am
"); United States v. [read post]
