Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade

773 F.2d 1 (1985)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
773 F.2d 1 (1985)

Play video


Towards the end of 1978 and in the beginning of 1979, Manego (plaintiff), a black male, sought to build a disco in the town of Orleans and applied for liquor and entertainment licenses from the Orleans Board of Selectmen. The site of the disco was close in proximity to a skating rink patronized primarily by children. At the time, the rink was owned by Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank (Bank) (defendant). The vice-president of the bank, David Willard (defendant) was also the general manager of the rink, as well as the president of the Orleans Board of Trade, which served as the town’s chamber of commerce. Willard and the Board of Trade vocally opposed the creation of the disco at hearings held by the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen ultimately denied Manego’s applications for liquor and entertainment licenses. Manego appealed the denial of the liquor license, which was also denied by the Orleans Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals did, however, grant Manego a building permit. The Bank filed suit in Superior Court to challenge the issuance of the permit. However, after the Bank sold the rink to Paul Thibert in July 1979, the Bank withdrew the suit. In July 1979, Thibert, a white male, sought to obtain a new entertainment license. The rink planned to expand its operations to include roller skating and dancing programs for adults. The Board of Selectmen granted Thibert’s application. Manego subsequently brought suit in federal district court against the Board of Selectmen, the Bank, and Willard, alleging that they had conspired to deny his license applications on the basis of race. The district court dismissed Manego’s suit. Manego subsequently brought this suit, substituting the Board of Selectmen with the Board of Trade as defendants, but retaining the Bank and Willard as defendants. This time, Manego alleged antitrust violations stemming from the defendants’ alleged conspiracy to prevent the disco from competing with the rink. Finding that the same facts formed the basis of Manego’s antitrust claim as formed the basis of his earlier civil rights action, the district court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of res judicata.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Bownes, J.)

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 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership