SCOTUS Denies Cert in Fantasy Baseball Case

The US Supreme Court denied certiorari today in the fantasy baseball case of Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. CBC Distribution. That dispute had formed the basis of my April Fools Day hoax, claiming that cert had been granted but that a dispute arose when three members of the Court recused themselves due to participation in a fantasy league, and two others did not.

The suit revolved around the use of real statistics generated by players at the major league level for use in fantasy leagues, when major league baseball claimed that those that wanted to use the stats needed to pay a licensing fee, while plaintiff CBC, which runs a service for fantasy players, claimed no such fee was needed under the First Amendment. Since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with CBC, Major League Baseball has now definitively lost the case.

The hoax, and the underlying legal and baseball issues of recusal that inspired it, was the subject of a second post: Deconstructing a Fantasy (And Who Was Duped?) The brief order did not mention anyone recusing themselves for participating in a fantasy baseball league.

The dispute over when court members should recuse themselves, however, remains unresolved.

See also: Sam Alito Talkin’ Baseball (and Antitrust): (Tony Mauro @ Blog of Legal Times)

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Supreme Court Grants Cert in "Fantasy Baseball" Case; Three Justices Recuse Themselves Due To Participation in High Court League
  2. Recusal In the High Court…For Fantasy Baseball?
  3. Deconstructing a Fantasy (And Who Was Duped?)
  4. Sotomayor is Most Like Which Baseball Figure? (Yes! It’s a real question!)
  5. The SCOTUS Nominee and The Tissue Box Test

Tags:

June 2, 2008 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.