翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Harris
・ United States v. Harris (tax case)
・ United States v. Harriss
・ United States v. Hasan K. Akbar
・ United States v. Hatch
・ United States v. Hatter
・ United States v. Hayes
・ United States v. Heirs of De Haro
・ United States v. Holmes
・ United States v. Hooe
・ United States v. Hubbard
・ United States v. Hubbell
・ United States v. Hudson
・ United States v. Imperial Petroleum, Inc.
・ United States v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.
・ United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission
・ United States v. Ivanov
・ United States v. Jackalow
・ United States v. Jackson
・ United States v. Janis
・ United States v. Jawad
・ United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation
・ United States v. John
・ United States v. John (1978)
・ United States v. John (2010)
・ United States v. Johns
・ United States v. Johnson
・ United States v. Johnson (1863)
・ United States v. Johnson (1899)


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc. : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.

''United States v. International Boxing Club of New York'' (348 U.S. 236, 1955), often referred to as ''International Boxing Club'' or just ''International Boxing'', was an antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. By a 7-2 margin, the justices ruled that the exemption it had previously upheld for Major League Baseball was peculiar and unique to that sport and that it did not apply to boxing. Since it met the definition of interstate commerce, the government could therefore proceed with a trial to prove IBCNY and the other defendants had conspired to monopolize the market for championship boxing in the United States.
It was the first time another sport had argued it was covered by the same exemption as baseball by virtue of being a professional sport. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, admitted that it would never have reached the Court but for the baseball exemption, and dissenting justices Felix Frankfurter and Sherman Minton were unsparing in their criticism of the arbitrary nature of this distinction.
The case was remanded for trial, which the government won, forcing the breakup of some of the defendant companies. An appeal of that decision also was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court four years later, upholding the wide discretion and scope of district court judges in shaping remedies for antitrust violations.
==Background of the case==

In January 1949 James D. Norris and Arthur Wirtz, who controlled boxing at several major arenas including Madison Square Garden, Chicago Stadium and Detroit Olympia, paid the recently retired Joe Louis $100,000 for four fighters he managed. They agreed that those fighters would fight it out among themselves for the new heavyweight title, and in return fight only in matches Norris and Wirtz promoted for several years.
This gave them an effective monopoly on all major boxing matches save those in the flyweight and bantamweight divisions. From 1949 to 1955 all but four championship fights took place under their control. They also secured exclusive television contracts for twice-weekly fights at the Garden, at a time when boxing was increasingly coming to depend on television revenues.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.