Civil Procedure Case Brief # 1

Title and Citation: Lloyd Corporation, Ltd v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551
(1972)
Identities of Parties: D (Lloyd Corporation) owned a large, modern
retail center in Oregon. P (Tanner) member of a group that passed out
handbills on D property
Procedural History: P filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief in district court. The trial court ruled in favor of the P, on appeal
the court for appeals for the 9th circuit t of appeals affirmed. The D
appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Facts: P was a Vietnam War protestor who was distributing anti-war
handbills inside the D mall in Oregon. The area was completely
enclosed with landscaped malls running through. P was a member of
the Resistance Community that was handing out handbills that
invited people to public to protest the draft and war. A customer
complained and a security guard told the P they would be arrested for
trespassing if they did not leave. P filed suit in district court saying that
the policies of the mall violated their First Amendment rights.
Issue(s): Did the Ps policy not allowing the distribution of handbills
violate the D First Amendment right to free speech?
Holding and Rule: No, a private business may constitutionally
exclude the distribution of handbills on its property when those
handbills are completely unrelated to the business functions, and
there are alternative means for distributors to relay their message.
Right to exclude used non-discriminatory
Courts Reasoning: P was not entitled to distribute handbills within
Lloyd Center. The court contrasted this case with Amalgamated Food
Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, which allowed protestors to
picket a shopping center when their picketing was "directly related" to
the shopping center and no "reasonable opportunities to convey their
messagewere available." Here, P actions were unrelated to the
operations of the mall, and the protestors had an alternative on the
sidewalks immediately outside the mall, which were owned by the City
of Portland. Powell characterized equating public property with private
property intended for public use such as the mall as reaching too
far. Therefore, P and the protestors did not have a First Amendment
right to distribute their handbills within the mall.
Judgment and Order: Reversed.

Dissent: The majority makes a distinction between the present case

and Logan Valley that does not exist. With this ruling, the majority
attacks the reasoning of Logan Valley, as well as its longstanding
decision in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946). The Lloyd Center is
similar to the shopping center in Logan Valley in that both are bordered
by public roads, the entrances of both lead to public roads, and both
contain public parking areas and public and private sidewalks which
lead from store to store. The two establishments are different in that
the Lloyd Center is larger and has more and different types of stores,
and the Lloyd Centers security officers have the full force of
policemen, unlike the security guards employed in Logan Valley. The
Lloyd Center is much like the business block at issue in Marsh in that
it has become an integral part of commerce within the community.
Ultimately, the chief distinction between the present case and
precedent cases relates to the content of speech involved (Vietnam
War versus something related to the stores business). The protections
of the First Amendment do not permit a factual distinction based on
content, and the decisions of the lower courts should have been
affirmed.