Perspectives: ‘Marty Supreme’ film recalls tennis cases here

The highly regarded movie “Marty Supreme” captured the fawning of critics and did well at the box office, too. It also played well with the Hollywood crowd that serves up awards, winning a Golden Globe for Timothee Chalamet, who brilliantly portrayed the title character, a world-class table tennis player based on real life New York City ping-pong phenom Marty Reusman, adorned with the usual Hollywood scripting liberties.

The film also garnered nine nominations for Academy Awards to be presented March 15 at the 98th annual ceremony in Los Angeles. The movie’s candidacies for honors include the Big Three: Best Picture; Chalamet as Best Actor; and Josh Safdie as Best Director. It’s Chalamet’s second nomination for Best Actor after his captivating break-through portrayal of Minnesota’s Bob Dylan in “A Complete Unknown” in 2024.

The game of table tennis got a big boost two decades after the movie’s setting in the early 1950s when President Richard Nixon’s overture to China led to the Chinese ping-pong champions coming to America.

While the film is centered on the green, 9-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, 2½-foot-high table with a 6-inch-high net version of the game, its success with critics and at the box office recall a bevy of Minnesota appellate court litigation dealing with the hard court or grass court version of tennis.

Here is a look at some of them that have netted successes for litigants and defeats for the losers, ranging from “A” (antitrust) to “Z” (zoning).

Antitrust action

The organization that regulates competitive tennis did not violate federal antitrust laws in prohibiting high-powered double-strung tennis rackets in the 1981 case of Gunter Harz Sports, inc., v. United States Tennis Association, 665 F. 2d 222 ( (8th Chr. 1981). The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the U.S. tennis association did not violate the Sherman Act in honoring a ban imposed by the international tennis federation on such rackets, followed by adoption of its own similar proscription.

Another tennis action was brought against a seller of a tennis court coating on grounds that the material was defective in McBroom v. al-Chroma, Inc, 386 N. W. 2d 369 (Minn. App. 1986). Affirming the ruling of the Kandiyohi County District Court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the claim was precluded by a prior lawsuit in Wisconsin in which the tennis court coating company prevailed in an action to recover an unpaid balance on a note for the purchase of goods.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel applied because the issue of the claimed defect had been previously litigated as a defense in the corporation’s claim against the contractor in the Wisconsin litigation. Because the defective claim was barred by collateral estoppel, the seller was also entitled to a fee sanction under Minn. Stat. sec. 549.21

“I had never expected that the China initiative would come to fruition in the form of a ping-pong team.”
Richard Nixon (1913-1994)

****

 “Cocaine is terrific if you want to hang out with people you don’t know very well and play ping-pong all night.”
Actress Amy Poehler (1971 – )

****

“Whatever I do, I love to win. I don’t care if it’s tennis or ping-pong; I’ll kill myself to win.”
Baseball pitcher Andy Pettitte (1972 – )

Constitutional cases

High school girls tennis players split a pair of constitutional claims decided by the federal and state courts over nearly a decade from the early 1970s to the early 1980s.

In 1973 in Brenden v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 742, 477 F. 2d 1292 ((8th Cur. 1973), the 8th Circuit upheld a ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Miles Lord requiring high schools with boys athletic teams but no team for girls to allow girls to play on the boys team. A pair of girls, one seeking to play tennis and the other interested in cross-country skiing and running, sued their high schools and the Minnesota State High School League challenging the prohibition from participating on boys interscholastic teams when no teams were available for girls at those schools.

The 8th Circuit, in a ruling written by Judge Geral Heaney of Minnesota, held that the sex-based classification violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But in 1982 the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the policy of the State High School League establishing separate seasons for boys and girls in tennis and swimming in Striebel v. MN State High School League,321 N. W. 2d 400( Minn. 1982).The Supreme Court, affirming a ruling of the Ramsey County District Court, rejected a constitutional challenge to the separate seasons, as codified by state statute, on grounds that it was “a permissible scheduling decision” that did not offend Equal Protection.

Injury issues

Tennis players experience their share of injuries, which occasionally lead to litigation.

In Lundstrom v. City of Apple Valley, 581 N. W. 2d 517. (Minn. App.1998), a tennis player sued for injuries he incurred when he slipped and fell on black tape used to repair the surface of a green indoor municipal tennis facility. Reversing a ruling of the Dakota County District Court, the appellate court held that the tape was not a “hidden danger” that would overcome the municipality’s statutory immunity for recreational uses under Minn. Stat. sec. 463.03. The exemption covers claims against government bodies for negligence in connection with the operation of recreational facilities unless there are “hidden artificial dangers created or maintained” by the government entity.

Another type of injury, damage to reputation, was claimed by a New Ulm high school tennis coach in Poncin v. Arlt, 426 N. W. 2d 481 (Minn. App. 1989). The case was brought against a rival school district, its coach, a local newspaper and its columnist for reporting that the claimant had cheated in a high school tennis match by arranging his players to obviate the rule that the best player on each team is to play the number one position, which the lesser players are to play subordinate positions in each match.

A jury in Brown County ruled in favor of the defendants on all of the issues, and the appellate court affirmed. The jury found that some statements were true, precluding them from being actionable, while other remarks constituted legally protected “opinions” that were neither actionable nor defamatory.

Taxing tennis

Tennis can be a leisurely sport, but it can also be a taxing experience, as reflected in a pair of complementary rulings.

The state Supreme Court twice held that dues and fees collected by clubs from its members were subject to sales taxes. In Northland Country Club v. Commissioner of Taxation, 286 N. W. 2d (Minn. 1976), it affirmed a ruling of the St. Louis County District Court that annual membership dues charged by a country club in Duluth for golf, swimming, tennis, & related uses did not constitute costs for “admission to places of amusement,” nor was the country club a place of amusement or its facilities “amusement devices” in order to invoke sales and use tax liability. The facilities constitute “real property,” which precludes treating the use of them for use tax-purposes.

Similarly, in C.G. Rein Co. v. Romer, 304 N. W. 2d (Minn.1981), it upheld a determination by the Ramsey County District Court that fees charged by a private tennis club were not subject to “sales taxes.” The statute enacted in 1980, imposing sales tax on admission charges to “golf courses and tennis courts” did not apply to these fees, based upon its decision in the Duluth case.

Zoning zeal

A landowning couple who had a half-acre lot in the city of Lakeland in Washington County lost their zealous effort to gain a variance from the minimum-lot size in order to allow a contractor to build a residence on the property, which required larger lot size in Hinz v. City of Lakeland, 2007 WL 2481021 (Minn. App. Aug.31, 20007) (Nonprecedential).

Despite approval by the city’s planning commission, the city council denied a requested variance, which the Court of Appeals upheld. The appellate court pointed out that the land failed to satisfy the hardship factor required for zoning variance because the lot could be used for a number of nonresidential purposes, including “tennis courts.”

These cases reflect the way the tennis ball bounces on the courts — and in the courts — here in Minnesota.

RELATED: More Perspectives columns

PERSPECTIVES POINTERS

Some Top Minnesota Tennis Players

Mardy Fish (Edina): 2004 Olympic Silver medalist

Michael Chang (St. Paul): 1989 French Open winner born here

Jeanne Arth (St. Paul): 1959 Wimbledon doubles champion

Bethanie Mattek-Sands (Rochester): Multiple Grand Slam doubles champion

Charles “Bucky” Zimmerman: West High School and University of Minnesota star before successful law careers prior to untimely death in 2019

Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the Twin Cities law firm of Meyer, Njus, Tanick, Linder & Robbins.