Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
 
American Needle v. NFL: Even More Coverage

Later today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in American Needle v. NFL. We have covered the case in great detail on Sports Law Blog. If you're interested in more analysis, here are some other links:

1) I have a new Sports Illustrated column on American Needle. It is titled "Why American Needle v. NFL is Most Important Case in Sports History"

2) Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal has a thorough analysis of the case.

3) Marc Edelman examines the case on Sports Judge.

4) On the NFLPA's website--NFL Players.com--David Elfin considers the case.

5) The New York Times' Editorial Board opposes the NFL's position in the case.

6) NPR's Nina Totenberg examines the case.

7) Tim Breen of the Washington Times analyzes the case.

8) Sports journalist Tim Lemke also analyzes the case.

9) The Marketplace Program from American Public Media has a feature on the case.





2 Comments:

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Court will not even entertain or consider the NFL's argument that the single entity defense applies beyond logoed apparel licensing simply because there is no case or controversy involving any other context, including broadcasting, labor, etc., etc. The Court, in effect, would be considering and determining the impact that a single entity defense would have on the rights of numerous parties who are not similarly situated to American Needle (licensees in the logoed apparel business), who are not before the court, and who did not have an opportunity to be heard.

It would be like if an appellate court upheld a defense that the plain view doctrine applied in a particular situation, the plaintiff then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, and the government decided to join the appeal and assert that the plain view doctrine not only applies to the case at hand but to any and all searches and seizures.

Blogger Rick Karcher -- 1/13/2010 8:55 AM  


Yes It would be like if an appellate court upheld a defense that the plain view doctrine applied in a particular situation, the plaintiff then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, and the government decided to join the appeal and assert that the plain view doctrine not only applies to the case at hand but to any and all searches and seizures.

Anonymous Mr Tribulus -- 1/21/2010 9:23 AM  


Post a Comment