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

In its November 22 opinion, the court ruled that P breached its 1996 telecasting agreement with D when it preempted six baseball games scheduled for Sunday nights in September 1998, and September 1999 without the prior written approval of D. D claims that it has been damaged in an amount 'believed to exceed millions of dollars' as a result of P's breach of the Agreement. D received full payment from P under the contract, and as such, it may only seek extra-contractual damages stemming from the six preemptions. P seeks to preclude D from introducing testimony or other evidence of its alleged monetary damages. P contends that 'there is no factual basis to support any claim for monetary damages arising from these perceived injuries, and that such claims are the product of speculation and guesswork.'

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

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

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