Jump to content


Eight Husker Football Players Sue the Big Ten


knapplc

Recommended Posts


In most jurisdictions a temp order is only good for 14 days. So even if its granted today, another temporary injunction hearing could be set and then reversed once the BIG has had a chance to prepare (in 14 days) and before potential games are played. I mention such because if a temp injunction is granted today it doesn't necessarily mean games will be played. There are a variety of different routes the judge could take and a favorable ruling today (for the players) does not mean games will be guaranteed. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

In most jurisdictions a temp order is only good for 14 days. So even if its granted today, another temporary injunction hearing could be set and then reversed once the BIG has had a chance to prepare (in 14 days) and before potential games are played. I mention such because if a temp injunction is granted today it doesn't necessarily mean games will be played. There are a variety of different routes the judge could take and a favorable ruling today (for the players) does not mean games will be guaranteed. 

How does this work when the suit is in one jurisdiction but the B1G is in Illinois, then the rest are all spread around?

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, runningblind said:

How does this work when the suit is in one jurisdiction but the B1G is in Illinois, then the rest are all spread around?

 

Very good question. As far as a jurisdictional issue, its answered by minimum contacts with the forum state. Very complicated issue that most first year law students (and some attorneys) struggle to understand. 

 

On a procedural issue, it will very much depend on the Judge's ruling. There are so many different routes that this could take entire law school reviews and/or legal articles could be written on the topic. Its a good question to which there is no simple answer. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

The fact that it's a novel, never-been-tried-before, legally-flawed claim that football players are third-party beneficiaries of a conference contract among 14 universities makes it virtually impossible to get a temporary injunction. They also have necessary party issues because the the member schools made the decision and they are entitled to input in the case and should have been made defendants. Filing this lawsuit and seeking the temporary injunction could easily be deemed frivolous which, in Nebraska, entitles the other party to have their attorney's fees paid for having to defend the frivolous proceedings. I hope these parents are ready to open their pockets to pay the BIG's attorneys. My guess is that Attorney Flood did not mention this aspect of the case as he pursues the publicity that accompanies the lawsuit.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

In most jurisdictions a temp order is only good for 14 days. So even if its granted today, another temporary injunction hearing could be set and then reversed once the BIG has had a chance to prepare (in 14 days) and before potential games are played. I mention such because if a temp injunction is granted today it doesn't necessarily mean games will be played. There are a variety of different routes the judge could take and a favorable ruling today (for the players) does not mean games will be guaranteed. 

Parents have tried this when it comes to their HS kids grades keeping them from playing in a tourney.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, luvthecorn said:

The fact that it's a novel, never-been-tried-before, legally-flawed claim that football players are third-party beneficiaries of a conference contract among 14 universities makes it virtually impossible to get a temporary injunction. They also have necessary party issues because the the member schools made the decision and they are entitled to input in the case and should have been made defendants. Filing this lawsuit and seeking the temporary injunction could easily be deemed frivolous which, in Nebraska, entitles the other party to have their attorney's fees paid for having to defend the frivolous proceedings. I hope these parents are ready to open their pockets to pay the BIG's attorneys. My guess is that Attorney Flood did not mention this aspect of the case as he pursues the publicity that accompanies the lawsuit.

Nice try Warren

  • Haha 4
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

6 minutes ago, luvthecorn said:

The fact that it's a novel, never-been-tried-before, legally-flawed claim that football players are third-party beneficiaries of a conference contract among 14 universities makes it virtually impossible to get a temporary injunction. They also have necessary party issues because the the member schools made the decision and they are entitled to input in the case and should have been made defendants. Filing this lawsuit and seeking the temporary injunction could easily be deemed frivolous which, in Nebraska, entitles the other party to have their attorney's fees paid for having to defend the frivolous proceedings. I hope these parents are ready to open their pockets to pay the BIG's attorneys. My guess is that Attorney Flood did not mention this aspect of the case as he pursues the publicity that accompanies the lawsuit.

Let me give you an example why anything is possible with our joke of a legal system. 

 

Once upon a time someone went to a restaurant- they ordered a hot coffee. They spilled the hot coffee on themselves. They brought a lawsuit against the restaurant for giving them coffee that was too hot. The restaurant was penalized 2.86 million for selling hot coffee.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

Nice try Warren

As to credibility on this topic, I'll put my 30 years as a lawyer up against your attempts at humor any day.

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Let me give you an example why anything is possible with our joke of a legal system. 

 

Once upon a time someone went to a restaurant- they ordered a hot coffee. They spilled the hot coffee on themselves. They brought a lawsuit against the restaurant for giving them coffee that was too hot. The restaurant was penalized 2.86 million for selling hot coffee.

That had nothing to do with a temporary injunction.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...