New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of Colorado Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court affirmed a preliminary injunction preventing University of Colorado officials from inducing a football coach to breach his existing employment contract with the New England Patriots, finding tortious interference and rejecting Eleventh Amendment immunity claims.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that state agents can be enjoined from tortiously interfering with contracts, even if their employer is a state entity, and that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Charles L. Fairbanks had an employment contract with the New England Patriots Football Club (Patriots) to serve as manager and head coach until January 1983. The contract included a negative covenant preventing Fairbanks from providing football-related services to any other entity without the Patriots’ permission. In November 1978, officials and supporters of the University of Colorado (Defendants) successfully persuaded Fairbanks to leave the Patriots and become head coach at the University. The Patriots sued the University defendants (not Fairbanks) for tortious interference with their contractual relationship with Fairbanks. The district court found Fairbanks’ services unique, the potential harm to the Patriots irreparable, and damages difficult to ascertain. It granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from causing the University to employ Fairbanks. Defendants appealed, arguing, inter alia, Eleventh Amendment immunity, that Fairbanks was an indispensable party, and that the injunction was improper.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in granting a preliminary injunction against state university officials to prevent them from tortiously interfering with an existing employment contract by inducing a coach to breach that contract?
Affirmed. The court held that the district court did not err in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the district court err in granting a preliminary injunction against state university officials to prevent them from tortiously interfering with an existing employment contract by inducing a coach to breach that contract?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that third parties, including state actors, can Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Rule
A third party may be enjoined from tortiously interfering with an existing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt
Legal Analysis
The court found ample evidence supporting the district court's findings of a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court affirmed a preliminary injunction against the University of Colorado