Chicago National Ball Club, Inc. v. Vincent
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
No. 92 C 4398 (1992)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. (Cubs) (plaintiff) was a member of the National League (NL) within Major League Baseball (MLB). Starting with the 1968 season, the Cubs played in the NL’s eastern division. However, by 1992, certain NL clubs sought to realign the league’s divisions, which would have moved the Cubs to the western division. On March 4, 1993, the NL’s clubs voted 10-2 in favor of realignment, with the Cubs voting against realignment. The Cubs’ vote meant the proposal was defeated pursuant to § 9.4 of the NL’s constitution, which provided that a club could not be moved to another division without its consent. On July 6, Francis T. Vincent, MLB’s commissioner, issued an order implementing a realignment of the NL’s divisions, including moving the Cubs to the western division. Vincent asserted authority to override the NL’s rejection of realignment pursuant to his power under Article I of the Major League Agreement (MLA) to investigate any action or conduct that was not in the best interests of baseball and to take necessary action, such as remedial, preventive, punitive action. Per Vincent, the requirement that the Cubs approve a division transfer was not in baseball’s best interests because most NL clubs favored realignment. The Cubs brought an action for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under Illinois law against the forced realignment. The Cubs argued that Vincent exceeded his power under Article I and that MLA Article VII barred the commissioner from resolving disputes whose resolution otherwise was addressed by the NL’s constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conlon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.