Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. Partnership
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STONEBURNER, Judge.
On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, appellant Frank Howard argues that the district court made impermissible findings of fact and erred as a matter of law in concluding that the Timberwolves (team) acted as a single entity to limit Howard’s access to the Target Center to photograph team games and did not violate antitrust laws, and erred by granting summary judgment on his claims for tor-tious interference with prospective business relations and contract. Because we agree that the team acted as a single entity as a matter of law, and that the team was…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- In Re G-Fees Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Insignia Systems, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
- Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. v. Minnesota Hockey, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.