New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of Colorado
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
592 F.2d 1196 (1979)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Chuck Fairbanks was under contract until 1983 to perform as general manager and head coach of the New England Patriots (plaintiff), a professional football team in the National Football League. Fairbanks’s contract contained a provision prohibiting him from providing “services directly connected with football” to any entity other than the Patriots. In November 1978, the University of Colorado (the university) (defendant) approached Fairbanks to recruit him as the university’s head football coach. The parties negotiated in secret and came to an agreement. Fairbanks informed the Patriots’ owner, William Sullivan, that Fairbanks intended to leave the Patriots at the end of the 1978 season. Sullivan suspended Fairbanks. The Patriots sued the university for tortious interference with the Fairbanks-Patriots contract. The district court entered a preliminary injunction stopping the university from employing Fairbanks as head football coach. The university appealed. On appeal, Fairbanks was allowed to file an amicus brief in which he claimed that his contract did not preclude him from serving as the university’s coach and that an injunction was unwarranted or unfair for various reasons, including because the Patriots had fired him.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aldrich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.