Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

National Hockey League Players Association v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
419 F.3d 462 (2005)


Facts

The National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) (plaintiff) and two players, Anthony Aquino and Edward Caron, filed suit against the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) (defendant), which consisted of 20 teams, including teams in Michigan and Pennsylvania, with players aged 16-20. The suit challenged the legality of the “Van Ryn Rule” which banned 20-year-old players who had not previously played professional “major junior” hockey. The OHL, along with the Western Hockey League and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, formed the “Major Junior Leagues” of the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), one of three major sources of players in the National Hockey League’s (NHL) draft. One of the OHL’s rules provided that each team could only carry three 20-year-old, or “overage,” players. Additionally, a rule held that no overage player could be signed by an OHL team unless he was previously on a Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) or USA Hockey Player’s Registration the previous season. The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) did not allow players holding either type of registration to play at an NCAA school. When combined, both OHL rules prevented OHL teams from signing any 20-year-old NCAA player because such player would not have been permitted by the NCAA to have obtained the registration required by the OHL. In a prior proceeding (NHLPA I) the district court granted the NHLPA’s request for an injunction preventing enforcement of the Van Ryn Rule. The court of appeals reversed and held that the NHLPA had failed to identify in its complaint the relevant market required under the Sherman Act. After the NHLPA amended its complaint in an attempt to cure the defect, the district court denied injunctive relief. NHLPA and the players appealed.

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.

Issue

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 (Clay, 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.

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 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.