Hogan v. Andre - 1987
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today, we are faced with the unprecedented question of whether or not Mr. Hogan had the ability and legal claim to bodyslam Mr. the Giant. The Court finds that Mr. Hogan did, in fact, have standing, then dropped the leg and legally got the three count. Both Alexis de Tocqueville and Dusty Rhodes would agree that Mr. Hogan’s demonstration of American perseverance exemplified this country’s greatness.
The ruling is AFFIRMED.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN dissenting.
John Quincy Adams once stated, “Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.” This ruling reinforces both Mr. Hogan’s jingoism and the “might makes right” mentality that fuels the Reagan Administration’s foreign policy. The Hulkster, while having a legal claim to his title belt, is setting a dangerous precedent for this industry. "Because we're the good guy" is not a tenable justification. Unchecked Hulkamania will run wild, perhaps leading to a dangerous new world order.
DiBiase v. Savage - 1988
JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Should outside interference nullify Mr. Savage’s victory in the WWF Championship tournament finals? Mr. DiBiase, using his considerable wealth, has argued this case through the appeals courts.
While there was an unsanctioned run-in by one Mr. Hogan, the referee did not see the interference in question, therefore Fruit of the Poisonous Tree does not apply to the pinfall derived from a foreign object. The Court cannot, in good conscience, impose an ex post facto judgment on this match. And let us not forget that this tournament began after Mr. DiBiase attempted to illegally purchase the championship belt and the title was left vacant.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision is REVERSED and Mr. Savage’s title reign is CONFIRMED.
JUSTICE SCALIA dissenting.
The Court’s ruling is absurd, indicative of scattershot logic and general jiggery-pokery. The only path to victory for the Macho Man was outside interference in the form of Hulk Hogan hitting a defenseless Ted DiBiase in the back with a steel chair. This is a tainted victory, destroying the liberty of independent businessmen such as Mr. DiBiase. Millionaires have rights and we should not discriminate against them.
Mr. Hogan perpetrated a gross miscarriage of justice that will go unpunished thanks to the legal thimbleriggery of five Justices. What was once a slobberknocker has devolved into pure applesauce.
I dissent.
Rock v. Austin - 2001
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. McMahon may have interfered in the match, but it is not the Court’s place to interfere in this ruling. We must know when to take a step back and allow private industry to operate within its own purview.
My dissenting colleagues will no doubt attempt to use outlandish claims and troglodytic reasoning to insist that I had previously deemed outside interference to always be illegal.
They will try to find a precedent in DiBiase v. Savage, perhaps even Hart v. Michaels. To them, I say that context matters. This was a no disqualification match. For there to suddenly be a disqualification in a No DQ match goes against the founders’ intent.
Mr. Austin’s victory is AFFIRMED. And that is the bottom line.
JUSTICE GINSBERG dissenting.
In DiBiase v. Savage, my colleague previously argued against outside interference. Now that big businessmen are threatened, allegedly objective Justice Scalia conveniently flip flops his position and turns heel. The People’s Champion (and vis-à-vis, the People) was unfairly denied his victory by collusion between Mr. McMahon and Mr. Austin. The only reason that he could possibly defend this decision is that Justice Scalia, much like the WWF Chairman, feels more comfortable portraying the character of an evil authority figure than actually GOVERNING...
Cena v. Michaels - 2007
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBERG, and CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS join, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Let’s go Cena!
JUSTICE THOMAS dissenting.
Cena sucks.
Lesnar v. Reigns v. Rollins - 2015
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Rollins was in possession of the “Money in the Bank contract,” which entitled him to one title match at any time and place of his choosing. That chosen time was in the middle of the existing case of Lesnar v. Reigns, turning a one on one match into an unprecedented triple-threat suit.
The Court recognizes the validity of the contract as well as all of its unenumerated powers. We UPHOLD both Mr. Rollins’ cash-in and subsequent victory.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
In order to defend the indefensible, the other Justices are attempting somersaults of legal gymnastics that rival Rey Mysterio flying over the top rope for a corkscrew shooting star press.
Nowhere in the contract does it state that you can change the underlying nature of an existing match. This is expanding MITB’s power far beyond the scope of what the founders of the company intended when they established the contract. This decision opens the door for future interpretive distortions that could destroy this federation. What’s next, a contract that allows you to add a steel cage or a ladder? Could a male wrestler challenge for the Women’s Title?
The Court needs to adhere to the foundation established by the McMahons, otherwise we are just animals. If the Court’s definitions of “Good Guy” and “Bad Guy” continue to change every month, our decisions might as well be arbitrary, predetermined and fake.
-30-
Comments