Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
City of Oakland Calif. vs. Oakland Raiders 174 C.a. 3d 414 Cal. Rptr. 153 1985

City of Oakland Calif. vs. Oakland Raiders 174 C.a. 3d 414 Cal. Rptr. 153 1985

Ratings: (0)|Views: 558|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Aug 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Monday, August 23, 2010 13:42 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: CA-ORCSCitation Text: 174 Cal.App.3d 414Lines: 376Documents: 1Images: 0
business law 2 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=508&invol=520
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
 
CITY OF OAKLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.OAKLAND RAIDERS et al., Defendants and Re-spondents.
No. A029031.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, Califor-nia.Nov 15, 1985.SUMMARYIn an action by a city to acquire a National FootballLeague franchise through its power of eminent do-main, the trial court entered judgment against thecity on the grounds the stated purpose was not apublic use, that the city's action was invalid underfederal antitrust law, and that its action was invalidunder the commerce clause of the federal Constitu-tion(U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl.3). (Superior Court of Monterey County, No. 76044, Nat A. Agliano,Judge.)The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that profes-sional football is such a nationwide business and socompletely involved in interstate commerce that ac-quisition of the franchise by the city through emin-ent domain would impermissibly burden interstatecommerce. It held the proposed eminent domain ac-tion would more than indirectly or incidentally reg-ulate interstate commerce by barring indefinitelythe relocation of the franchise out of the city, whichwas the precise brand of parochial meddling withthe national economy that the commerce clause wasdesigned to prohibit. It held the burden that wouldbe imposed on interstate commerce outweighed thelocal interest in exercising statutory eminent do-main authority over the franchise. (Opinion by Sab-raw, J., with Anderson, P. J., and Channell, J., con-curring.)HEADNOTESClassified to California Digest of Official Reports
Commerce § 1--Commerce Clause--Purpose.The purpose of the commerce clause(U.S. Const.,art. I, § 8, cl.3)is to foster development and themaintenance of a national common market amongthe states and to eradicate trade barriers.
Commerce § 3--State Regulation and Taxationof Interstate Commerce.State or local regulation of interstate commerce willbe upheld if it regulates evenhandedly to effectuatea legitimate local public interest and its effects oninterstate commerce are only incidental, but not if the burden imposed on such commerce is truly ex-cessive in relation to putative local benefits. Localburdens may be voided if the regulation governsthose phases of the national economy which, be-cause of the need of national uniformity, demandtheir regulation, if any, be prescribed by a singleauthority. The absence of congressional action re-specting such economic matters is not controlling,since the commerce clause(U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3)limits state power by its own force.
Appellate Review § 55--Presenting and Pre-serving Questions in Trial Court--Adherence toTheory of Case--Rehearing.The law of the case doctrine does not extend topoints of law that might have been but were notpresented and determined on a prior appeal. Thedenial of a rehearing decides nothing on pointsraised for the first time in the rehearing petition,and the law of the case does not apply to that situ-ation.
(4)
Commerce § 3--State Regulation and Taxationof Interstate Commerce-- Application of CommerceClause--Eminent Domain.A city's attempt to acquire a National FootballLeague franchise by eminent domain was not ex-empt from scrutiny under the commerce clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3)on the asserted groundthe city merely attempted to enter the market as aparticipant, not a regulator, where it did not attemptto enter the football market on an equal footing,Page 1174 Cal.App.3d 414, 220 Cal.Rptr. 153
(Cite as: 174 Cal.App.3d 414)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
bidding with other potential market participants andseeking to purchase from someone willing and ableto sell, but rather relied on its governmental powerof eminent domain.[See
Commerce § 3--State Regulation and Taxationof Interstate Commerce-- Eminent Domain.A state may exercise eminent domain power eventhough by so doing it indirectly or incidentally bur-dens interstate commerce.
Commerce § 3--State Regulation and Taxationof Interstate Commerce-- City's Acquisition of Na-tional Football Franchise by Eminent Domain.Because professional football is such a nationwidebusiness and so completely involved in interstatecommerce, the acquisition of a National FootballLeague franchise by a city through eminent domainwas invalid under the commerce clause(U.S.Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3). The city's proposed actionwould more than indirectly or incidentally regulateinterstate commerce, since the city claimed author-ity, pursuant to eminent domain, to bar indefinitelythe relocation of the franchise out of the city. Thatis the precise brand of parochial meddling with thenational economy that the commerce clause was de-signed to prohibit. The relocation of the franchiseimplicates the welfare not only of the individualteam franchise, but of the entire league. Thus, theburden that would be imposed on interstate com-merce outweighed the local interest in exercisingstatutory eminent domain authority over the fran-chise.COUNSELDavid A. Self, Self, Dang & Kelson, Horan, Lloyd& Karachale, Laurence P. Horan, Michael W.Stamp and Richard E. Winnie, City Attorney, forPlaintiff and Appellant.Moses Lasky, John E. Munter, Lasky, Haas, Cohler& Munter, William Mathews Brooks, Brooks &Hughes, Barrie Engel, Hardin, Cook, Loper, Engel& Bergez, Gary R. Netzer, Ira Reiner and James K.Hahn, City Attorneys, Edward C. Dygert, DeputyCity Attorney, De Witt W. Clinton, County Coun-sel, and Dennis M. Devitt, Deputy County Counsel,for Defendants and Respondents.SABRAW, J.Plaintiff City of Oakland appeals from a judgmentafter a court trial in favor of defendants OaklandRaiders et al. We have determined that plaintiff'sproposed exercise of eminent domain power would,in this case, violate the commerce clause of theUnited States Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm.I. Facts and ProcedurePlaintiff sued in 1980 to acquire by eminent domainthe property of defendants Oakland Raiders(Raiders), a National Football League (NFL orLeague) franchise. The Alameda County SuperiorCourt issued a preliminary injunction prohibitingtransfer of the franchise from Oakland, the case wastransferred to Monterey County(Code Civ. Proc., §394), and summary judgment was entered for de-fendants. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed,holding our eminent domain statute allowed con-demnation of intangible
*417
property and thatplaintiff had a right to show whether its attemptedexercise of eminent domain over the Raiders fran-chise would be a valid public use. (
].) We subsequently granted a peremptorywrit of mandate directing the trial court to hold ahearing on plaintiff's application for reinstatementof the preliminary injunction against transfer of thefranchise from Oakland. (
(1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 565[183Cal.Rptr. 326] [
 Raiders II 
].) In the meantime,however, Raiders home games were played in LosAngeles. In early 1983 the trial court reinstated andmodified the injunction against transfer, providingthat all 1983 Raiders home games for the 1983 sea-son would be played in Oakland “unless and untilPage 2174 Cal.App.3d 414, 220 Cal.Rptr. 153
(Cite as: 174 Cal.App.3d 414)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->