Skip to main content

This Day in Legal History -- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 61 (2001)



On this date in legal history in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. While not a landmark case, it is interesting because few sports-related cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Martin was Casey Martin a professional golfer who suffers from Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome. This genetic defect causes abnormal growth of blood cells or the lymphatic system and causes pain and makes it difficult to walk, especially the distances involved in 18 holes of golf. Martin had played college golf at Stanford, where he had been a teammate of Tiger Woods, and wished to play professionally on the PGA tour and wanted to be allowed to ride in a golf cart between holes due to his medical condition. 

The PGA denied Martin’s request and asserted that walking between holes was an integral part of the game and riding in a cart would provide Martin with an unfair advantage. Martin sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Martin. Perhaps the most notable result of the case was the finding that walking was not fundamental to golf, thus making a lie out of Mark Twain’s statement about golf being “a good walk spoiled.”  Scalia punctuates his (typically) angry dissent with a quote from Kurt Vonnegut about “everybody was finally equal.” 

Although Casey Martin went all the way to the Supreme Court and won, he has not been as fortunate in his professional golfing career which has been spotty at best. He is currently the head coach of the University of Oregon golf team, and although he qualified for the 2012 U.S. Open, he failed to make the cut.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …