Brooks v. Chicago Downs Association

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986 · Property

Propertyright to excludeprivate propertyracetrackpatronsIllinois common lawplaces of amusementlicensees versus patrons

Facts

Plaintiffs were Pennsylvania citizens who formed a partnership to pool money and place bets at horse racing tracks. Defendant, a private Illinois corporation licensed to conduct harness racing at Sportsman's Park, barred two plaintiffs when they attempted to place a $250,000 Super Bet wager and later informed them they would be denied entry on all future racing dates. Plaintiffs sought an injunction allowing them access to the track. The dispute centered on whether Illinois law allowed the private racetrack to exclude them without cause.

Issue

Under Illinois law, may the operator of a privately owned horse racetrack exclude a patron from the track premises for any reason or no reason, so long as the exclusion is not based on race, color, creed, national origin, or sex? Or must the racetrack show just cause for excluding a patron?

Rule

Illinois follows the common law rule that the proprietor of a privately owned place of amusement, including a racetrack, may exclude patrons for any reason or no reason, except on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, or sex. The statutory "just cause" rule applies to exclusion of occupation licensees, not patrons.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Harness Park, a privately owned racetrack in Cicero, Illinois, posts no reason when it denies entry to Omar Patel, a regular bettor who has never violated any track rule. Management simply tells him that he is no longer welcome on the premises.

If Omar seeks an injunction requiring the track to admit him, how should an Illinois court most likely rule under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority predicted that Illinois follows the common law rule for patrons at privately owned racetracks: the proprietor may exclude a patron for any reason or no reason, subject only to limits barring exclusion on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, or sex. No showing of just cause is required for a patron.