02627nam 2200601 450 991081250830332120200520144314.00-252-09599-5(CKB)3710000000202190(EBL)3414374(SSID)ssj0001266221(PQKBManifestationID)11729382(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001266221(PQKBWorkID)11250412(PQKB)11077480(MiAaPQ)EBC3414374(StDuBDS)EDZ0001639651(OCoLC)884725783(MdBmJHUP)muse32420(Au-PeEL)EBL3414374(CaPaEBR)ebr10901922(CaONFJC)MIL629333(OCoLC)923498725(EXLCZ)99371000000020219020140816h20142014 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrBaseball on trial the origin of baseball's antitrust exemption /Nathaniel GrowUrbana, [Illinois] :University of Illinois Press,2014.©20141 online resource (297 p.)Description based upon print version of record.0-252-07975-2 0-252-03819-3 Includes bibliographical references and index.The rivalry begins : 1913 -- The opening salvos : December 1913 to June 1914 -- The federal league strikes back : June 1914 to December 1914 -- The Landis Case : January 1915 -- The long wait : February 1915 to February 1916 -- An aborted trial : February 1916 to June 1917 -- Baltimore goes to trial, again : June 1917 to April 1919 -- The defense : April 1919 -- The appeal and final decision : May 1919 to October 1922.The 1922 Federal Baseball Supreme Court ruling held that the 'business of base ball' was not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act because it did not constitute interstate commerce. This work explains why the unanimous Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, which gave rise to Major League Baseball's exemption from antitrust law, was correct given the circumstances of the time.Antitrust lawUnited StatesHistoryProfessional sports contractsUnited StatesHistoryAntitrust lawHistory.Professional sports contractsHistory.343.7307/21Grow Nathaniel1695287MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910812508303321Baseball on trial4074440UNINA