Legal Opinion

Connecticut Professional Sports Corporation v. Heyman

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 5, 1967No. 67 Civ. 4165PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

In this diversity action, plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation, has moved pursuant to Rule 65, F.R.Civ.P., for an injunction pendente lite to prevent defendant Arthur Heyman, a New York citizen, from playing professional basketball with the New Jersey Americans or with any professional basketball team other than the Hartford Capitols of the Eastern Professional Basketball League.

Heyman, an All-American while at Duke University, was selected as one of the top 50 college basketball players of the century. Following his inability to succeed with two National Basketball…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Franke v. WiltschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  3. Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. v. LajoieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  4. Bethlehem Engineering Export Co. v. ChristieCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  5. American League Baseball Club of Chicago v. ChaseNew York Supreme Court · 1914

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Don King Productions, Inc. v. DouglasDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
  2. Matuszak v. Houston Oilers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1974
  3. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. v. BergeyDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1974
  4. Nassau Sports v. PetersDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1972
  5. Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. ShaversDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API