Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

White v. Nat'l Football League, No. 08-2001

By FindLaw Staff on November 10, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a case involving whether, after NFL quarterback Michael Vick was convicted of dog fighting charges, his team was entitled to recover certain bonus money he earned, rulings against the NFL are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected the NFL's argument that Vick's roster bonuses were signing bonus allocations subject to the years-performed test; and 2) it did not err in determining that the bonuses were earned when Vick met the roster provisions in his contract, and were thus not subject to forfeiture pursuant to the terms of a settlement in an antitrust class action and the CBA.  Moreover, the denial of the NFL's motion to recuse the district judge and terminate the consent decree is affirmed where 1) there was no indication that the NFL was restrained by any fear of antitrust liability; 2) the parties' agreement to the district court's involvement mitigated concerns about unsettling the power structure under the labor laws; and 3) the district judge's comments to the press did not create an appearance of partiality.

Read White v. Nat'l Football League, No. 08-2001

Appellate Information

Submitted: March 12, 2009

Filed: November 10, 2009


Opinion by Judge Wollman

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard