Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Florida Panthers (P) commenced this action against Miami Sports (D) and the City of Miami (D1) seeking a declaration of rights under a license agreement between the P and Leisure Management International. Counts II and IV of P’s complaint sought injunctive relief and damages for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. P is a franchise of the NHL and had a lease with various parties for the Miami Arena. The lease provided for an initial term of two hockey seasons but gave P, at its sole discretion, four one year options to extend the lease. P had to exercise its option to renew for the 1996-1997 season on or before August 1, 1995. P elected not to exercise the option and advised the Miami Arena. P indicated in its letter that the terms were very unfavorable but that if the terms were changed, it would consider leasing. P wanted the terms that were similar to the Miami Heat basketball team. A second license agreement was entered into, but the terms continued to favor the Miami Arena tremendously. The Arena rejected the amendment to the agreement and replied that it would be better served with a lease, which commences on August 1, 1996, and expires on July 31, 2006. By a letter dated July 9, 1996, the Arena directed P to vacate by July 15, 1996.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.