Lewis v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd.

941 P.2d 266 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lewis v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd.

Colorado Supreme Court
941 P.2d 266 (1997)

Facts

Robert Lewis and Bert Matthews (vendors) (plaintiffs) sold programs and scorecards outside Coors Field (Coors), the downtown Denver home stadium of the Colorado Rockies (Rockies). The Rockies leased Coors from the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, a public entity, and thus concededly it was a government actor for First Amendment purposes with respect to Coors. The Rockies had an exclusive concession agreement with ARA Leisure Services, Inc. (Aramark) for the area inside and immediately outside Coors, and the agreement prohibited other vendors in Aramark’s exclusive concession areas. The vendors were ticketed for selling their products in certain areas near Coors, including stadium walkways and between entrance gates (disputed areas). The vendors sued the Rockies, alleging the disputed areas were public free-speech forums and the Rockies thus violated the First Amendment because the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and the vendors did not have sufficient alternative sales channels. Specifically, the vendors argued Coors was designed to be integrated with Denver’s downtown and the disputed areas generally were indistinguishable from Denver’s public streets such that the public generally would be unaware they were in a private space when in the disputed areas. The Rockies responded that (1) the disputed areas were merely ingress and egress spaces for Coors and not comparable to public streets; (2) it had significant interests in restricting the vendors from selling their products in the disputed areas, including crowd control, safety, and pedestrian movement; and (3) the vendors had ample alternative methods to sell their products at nearby public areas and bars. The vendors generally agreed that the Rockies’ asserted interests were significant but countered that the Rockies’ actions were not narrowly tailored to serve those interests because the team did not impose comparable restrictions in even more congested areas at Coors. The vendors further argued that their products were targeted to attendees at specific games, such that the Rockies’ suggested alternative channels would not be functionally equivalent to being allowed to sell in the disputed areas. The district court issued an injunction prohibiting the Rockies from limiting vendors in the disputed areas. The Rockies appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mullarkey, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership