This case concerns the Chicago Bulls and WGN's challenge to NBA rules limiting or taxing the number of Bulls games that could be broadcast on the WGN superstation. Building on a prior 1991 decision affirmed on appeal, the court addressed the NBA's new proposals for a total ban on such telecasts or imposition of a superstation fee, while the Bulls sought to air up to 41 games. The NBA's operations involve both joint actions by teams (such as national broadcasting contracts) and individual team rights to local broadcasts, with revenues from joint activities shared equally. The court applied federal antitrust law under precedents like NCAA v. Board of Regents, concluding that restrictions on output of games via superstations were not covered by the Sports Broadcasting Act exemption and constituted unreasonable restraints.
This case is a patent infringement suit by the Riveras against Arlasky (after an uncollectible judgment against his company) in which intervening insurers sought a declaration that their policies imposed no duty to defend or indemnify Arlasky. The court granted the insurers summary judgment. It held that the policies' "advertising injury" coverage for offenses such as piracy, unfair competition, or infringement of copyright, title, or slogan did not encompass patent infringement. It further held that one insurer's policies had expired before the earliest date for which damages could be recovered under the six-year patent statute of limitations.
This case arose from a class action lawsuit filed after the October 1987 stock market crash, alleging issues with options pricing on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange on October 20, 1987. The parties reached a $10 million settlement creating a common fund for class members. The court, acting as fiduciary under the common fund doctrine, reviewed extensive fee and expense petitions from multiple law firms covering over four years of work. It approved $2.9 million in attorneys' fees (29% of the settlement), $1,002,252.50 in costs, and $30,000 in incentive awards to the three representative plaintiffs, while establishing a $40,000 reserve and directing distribution of the remainder to the class. The reductions from the over $5.9 million requested in fees and costs were based on scrutiny of time records, reasonableness of expenses, and the need to protect class members' interests.
This case involved the distribution of substantial unclaimed funds remaining after distributions to class members in an antitrust class action settlement between Superior Beverage Co. and Owens-Illinois, Inc. The court applied the cy pres doctrine, invited grant applications through public notice, held hearings, and reviewed submissions to allocate the balance, which exceeded $2 million, to 14 recipients including law schools, legal aid organizations, and public interest groups. The core reasoning examined the historical limits of cy pres and its more flexible modern application in antitrust cases, permitting awards that advance legal education, advocacy training, and access to justice even without a direct tie to the original claims. The court imposed reporting requirements on recipients and ordered the bank to disburse specific amounts to each grantee.
This case involves an antitrust challenge by the Chicago Bulls and WGN against NBA rules restricting superstation broadcasts of games, including the Superstation Same Night Rule (barring same-night superstation telecasts when TNT airs NBA games) and the 25-Game Rule (limiting superstation broadcasts per team). The NBA moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Same Night Rule was exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the Sports Broadcasting Act because it was part of the league's TNT contract, and that damages claims related to the 25-Game Rule lacked merit. The court denied the motion, holding that the SBA exemption did not apply since the teams retained ownership of broadcast rights rather than transferring them to the league, TNT's mix of subscription and advertising revenue did not clearly qualify as 'sponsored telecasting,' and factual disputes existed regarding the Bulls' and WGN's ability and intent to broadcast more games.
This case concerns a constitutional challenge to the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1983, which requires 24 hours' notice to both parents (or one in certain circumstances) before an abortion can be performed on an unemancipated minor, with an option for judicial waiver of notice. The court had previously enjoined enforcement of the Act due to its waiting period and inadequate bypass procedures, and after the Illinois Supreme Court issued Rule 307 to address confidentiality and expedition in waiver proceedings, the defendants sought to lift the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The court decided to maintain the injunction against the Act, finding that Rule 307 does not adequately ensure confidentiality for minors using the bypass option. The core reasoning is that the judicial bypass must provide a confidential and expeditious alternative to parental notice to satisfy constitutional standards for such statutes.