Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Dick Broadcasting Company, Inc. of Tennessee v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc.

Supreme Court of Tennessee
395 S.W.3d 653 (2013)


Dick Broadcasting Company, Inc. (DBC) (plaintiff), a license holder for various radio stations, entered into three separate contracts: one with Oak Ridge FM, Inc. (Oak Ridge FM) (defendant); one with ComCon Consultants (ComCon) (defendant); and one with John Pirkle and Jonathan Pirkle (Pirkle) (defendants). The three contracts were related to DBC’s acquisition of the programming rights and equipment for a radio station licensed by Oak Ridge FM. Only DBC’s contract with Oak Ridge FM, which gave DBC a right of first refusal to purchase the radio station’s assets, contained a clause requiring the written consent of Oak Ridge in the event that DBC wished to assign its rights, interests, and obligations under the agreement to another entity. Subsequently, DBC executed a purchase agreement with Citadel Broadcasting Company (Citadel), whereby Citadel acquired most of DBC’s radio-station assets, including DBC’s agreements with the defendants, for $300 million. However, Oak Ridge FM refused to consent to DBC’s assignment of the contract to Citadel. Eventually, DBC finalized the deal with Citadel without the assignment of the agreements. DBC filed suit against the defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ComCon and Pirkle contracts were assignable without the consent of Oak Ridge FM, and claiming breach of contract. DBC argued that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applied to the Oak Ridge FM contract and that the defendants had breached the agreement by failing to act reasonably. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the defendants. DBC appealed. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Koch Jr., J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.