Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

204 F.2d 506

Docket No. 208, Docket 22611.

Tepler v. Frick

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 8, 1953.

Decided May 1, 1953.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-05-01

4 counsel of record

Relies on Tepler v. Frick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1973

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

50195319601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Frederic A. Johnson, William M. Kunstler and Michael J. Kunstler, New York City, for appellant.

¶2Willkie, Owen, Farr, Gallagher & Walton, New York City, Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Smith, Chicago, 111., and Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, for Ford C. Frick, Chicago National League Ball Club and Cleveland Baseball Co., ap-pellees.

¶3Shearman & Sterling & Wright, New York City, Willard M. L. Robinson, New York City, and Winston, Strawn, Black & Towner, Chicago, 111. (John A; Wilson and Macllburne Van Voorhies, New York City, of counsel), for Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., ap-pellee.

¶4Thayer & Gilbert, New York City, Harold A. Segall, New York City (Edgar C. Morrison, New York City, of counsel), for Philip K. Wrigley, appellee.

¶5*507Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7 The plaintiff is a baseball pitcher who overworked his arm in 1944, while pitching for a minor league club in Tennessee. His verbose complaint purports to allege five claims or causes of action, one based apparently on negligence and four on violation of the anti-trust laws. The claim founded on negligence is obviously barred by limitations whether the applicable statute be that of Tennessee or of New York. The treble damage claims founded on the theory that organized baseball violates the antitrust laws fail completely to show any proximate causal relation between the alleged violations and the injury to plaintiff’s arm. See Monopsony in Manpower: Organized Baseball Meets the Antitrust Laws, 62 Yale L.J. 608, note 165. Judge Edelstein dealt with the case briefly but adequately and we are content to affirm on his opinion, 112 F.Supp. 245.

/204/f2d/506 · .json · Public domain