Take Me Out to the Courthouse · The Reserve Clause
The Stadium Ultimatum
Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State ex rel. Hatch (1999)
Charge: State attorney general's antitrust investigative demands against the club and league over a threatened sale and move (club resisting the demands)Court: Supreme Court of MinnesotaDocket: The Reserve Clause
Does baseball's antitrust exemption cover the sale and relocation of a franchise, so that clubs need not answer a state antitrust investigation?
The facts
A club's owner announced he would sell the team to out-of-state investors who planned to move it unless the legislature funded a new stadium by a deadline. The legislature turned down every stadium plan. The state attorney general then served the club and other big-league clubs with demands for documents, investigating whether baseball was illegally restricting where teams could locate. The clubs refused, citing baseball's antitrust exemption. A trial court ordered them to comply, finding the exemption covered only the reserve system.
You have the facts the court had. Guilty or not guilty? Call it in the game with your friends, then see what the court actually decided. Wrong call, you drink.
Citation: Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State ex rel. Hatch, 592 N.W.2d 847 (Minn. 1999)
Read more at caselaw.findlaw.com. The source reveals the outcome.