Big 12 to meet to consider 6 new teams(PAC)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

NinjaPoke

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jul 9, 2016
1,508
734
743
27
Lawton, OK
https://twitter.com/mikevorel/status/1553027041670221824?s=20&t=kRhdOQz03CmtmfLegRyaQQ


Still don’t understand why ASU and other PAC-10 schools still want want to band together with behavior like this?
 

NinjaPoke

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jul 9, 2016
1,508
734
743
27
Lawton, OK
https://twitter.com/mikevorel/status/1553035098039017472?s=21&t=fPQvl2tA60S1prCKMzOB9Q

“Only 5 out of the 12 PAC AD’s are at media day”

I wonder what’s going on.
 

NinjaPoke

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jul 9, 2016
1,508
734
743
27
Lawton, OK
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1553038304928354304?s=20&t=_xhmBb4adXkTEK9GxDIAhg

Also, PAC commissioner taking shots at Big XII. Gonna be an interesting weekend
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,201
21,206
1,743
It has been several years since I last practiced. I wont say my age, but i not only recall JFK being assassinated, but where i was at the time and people's reaction:tears mostly.

But, yes, I do know that there have been several Louisiana cases that cut off damages after a certain time bc damages too far into the future are too speculative.
Cutting off damages after a certain time because damages too far in the future are too speculative would ONLY be an issue of REMEDY after the contract had been breached. That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you were aware (and could actually cite) of legal authority INVALIDATING a contract in advance as violative of public policy based upon the term of the contract. Those are entirely different things.

I also could see the florida supreme court reject a foreign court deciding the fate of a major florida university. There numerous cases rejecting venue and choice of law provisions in a contract that have a great impact on the home state.

I just think the importance of a major university to the state of florida would prompt a florida judge to reject choice of law provisions that limited its jurisdiction to decide if a contract provision violated Florida public policy.
Florida Supreme Court simply doesn't have any authority under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to avoid/prohibit/reject removal of a state action to federal court if there is diversity of parties amongst states and the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more. A Defendant in a State Court in a case that is subject to removal to federal court subject matter jurisdiction doesn't even have to ask the State Court for removal to federal court. They simply file a notice of removal in state and federal court and the federal court is the one that decides whether or not they have jurisdiction....that's not the State court's decision in the first place.

Subject matter removal federal jurisdiction was put in place for exactly the reason you are saying you could see happen. The framers were concerned that when a case is filed in one state involving parties from that state and another one, that the state court might be biased toward parties from that state.

You were practicing A LONG LONG LONG time ago (before the Judiciary Act of of 1789 was passed) if you didn't realize that.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. 28 USC 1332 (emphasis added).
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,201
21,206
1,743
Most of mine state Delaware law even though the parties have nothing to do with Delaware.
May be they are incorporated in Delaware.

The other possibility is that Delaware courts and state law are very corporate entity friendly.
 
Sep 9, 2013
1,231
609
743
62
What were you practicing several years ago?
Cutting off damages after a certain time because damages too far in the future are too speculative would ONLY be an issue of REMEDY after the contract had been breached. That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you were aware (and could actually cite) of legal authority INVALIDATING a contract in advance as violative of public policy based upon the term of the contract. Those are entirely different things.



Florida Supreme Court simply doesn't have any authority under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to avoid/prohibit/reject removal of a state action to federal court if there is diversity of parties amongst states and the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more. A Defendant in a State Court in a case that is subject to removal to federal court subject matter jurisdiction doesn't even have to ask the State Court for removal to federal court. They simply file a notice of removal in state and federal court and the federal court is the one that decides whether or not they have jurisdiction....that's not the State court's decision in the first place.

Subject matter removal federal jurisdiction was put in place for exactly the reason you are saying you could see happen. The framers were concerned that when a case is filed in one state involving parties from that state and another one, that the state court might be biased toward parties from that state.

You were practicing A LONG LONG LONG time ago (before the Judiciary Act of of 1789 was passed) if you didn't realize that.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. 28 USC 1332 (emphasis added).
district courts can still remand questions of State law to the Florida Supreme court.

FWIW i did complex commercial litigation and Admiralty law. I tried cases involving intellectual property, ships sinking, securities fraud, and rich neighbors building poles with high intensity lights to shine into their hated next door neighbors windows.

I also tried many breach of contract cases. Lloyds of London was one of my clients for whom I did maritime cases.

federal courts also can refuse jurisdiction. i believe this to be exactly what happened in the maryland v ACC case.

it is called abstention.



Certification of questions of law to state supreme courts | Reuters
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,427
1,525
1,743
39
Edmond, OK
WOW!!! Reading the quotes from the PAC commissioner is pure gold. He is in full blown panic/denial mode. The comment about "shopping" in the Big 12 is hilarious. No one outside of PAC homers thinks that is a possibility. Best case scenario for the PAC right now is probably them only losing two more (AZ/Utah or AZ/CU).
 
Aug 31, 2004
2,624
1,130
1,743
Austin, TX
WOW!!! Reading the quotes from the PAC commissioner is pure gold. He is in full blown panic/denial mode. The comment about "shopping" in the Big 12 is hilarious. No one outside of PAC homers thinks that is a possibility. Best case scenario for the PAC right now is probably them only losing two more (AZ/Utah or AZ/CU).
I imagine he's feeling some additional heat because he had the chance last summer to bring on some B12 teams, which would have kept the PAC a viable conference even with some defections. Now, that ship has sailed.
 
Jul 27, 2011
911
509
1,643
27
Bixby
Kliavkoff's comments just come across as desperate. It's all speculation, but reading between the lines, it doesn't seem like he's real confident in the PAC-12's survival.

I don't think you'd make such bombastic statements if you weren't a little scared of the Big 12.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,201
21,206
1,743
district courts can still remand questions of State law to the Florida Supreme court.

FWIW i did complex commercial litigation and Admiralty law. I tried cases involving intellectual property, ships sinking, securities fraud, and rich neighbors building poles with high intensity lights to shine into their hated next door neighbors windows.

I also tried many breach of contract cases. Lloyds of London was one of my clients for whom I did maritime cases.

federal courts also can refuse jurisdiction. i believe this to be exactly what happened in the maryland v ACC case.

it is called abstention.



Certification of questions of law to state supreme courts | Reuters
1. You still haven't cited me any authority of finding a otherwise binding contract against public policy merely upon account of the length of the contract. I find that a wholly dubious and legally unsupportable argument of law.

2. Federal District Courts can remand questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court, but are not required to do so.

3. In a situation of you have described of a Florida Supreme Court likely being biased towards diverse litigants from out of state for political purposes and the questions of state law being ones of conflicts of law/jurisdictional questions (with the Florida Supreme Court invalidating forum of choice/law of choice provisions in the contract as against the public policy of Florida), one of the first things that would be decided by the FEDERAL COURT would be proper forum of law to be used in making their decisions. If the agreement of the parties as to that proper forum of law being other than Florida....it's incredibly unlikely that they would even bother to ever remand questions of Florida law back to the Florida Courts.

4. Federal courts can remand cases back to the state court of origin in removal cases. I happen to know they rarely, if ever, do so. They are clearly and obvious the exceptions, and not the general rule or practice. And when they do remand back, it is usually because they find that the jurisdictional requirements for federal court have not been met.

5. You are incorrect with your belief that a Federal District Court remanded either ACC/Maryland back to state courts. The ACC filed a lawsuit against Maryland in NC Courts and Maryland filed a countersuit in NC Courts. No removal to federal courts. Maryland subsequently filed a suit against the ACC in Maryland state court which was also not removed. Ultimately both were settled.

Atlantic Coast Conference and University of Maryland reach legal agreement (wyff4.com)

Finally, FWIW, you're speaking with a lawyer still in practice for 30 years now that isn't impressed with your reference to personal expertise when asked to provide cite to actual authority to establish your contentions. The things you claim would "likely" happen are actually things that have the most remote likelihood amongst all possible hypotheticals.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2013
303
175
593
34
1. You still haven't cited me any authority of finding a otherwise binding contract against public policy merely upon account of the length of the contract. I find that a wholly dubious and legally unsupportable argument of law.

2. Federal District Courts can remand questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court, but are not required to do so.

3. In a situation of you have described of a Florida Supreme Court likely being biased towards diverse litigants from out of state for political purposes and the questions of state law being ones of conflicts of law/jurisdictional questions (with the Florida Supreme Court invalidating forum of choice/law of choice provisions in the contract as against the public policy of Florida), one of the first things that would be decided by the FEDERAL COURT would be proper forum of law to be used in making their decisions. If the agreement of the parties as to that proper forum of law being other than Florida....it's incredibly unlikely that they would even bother to ever remand questions of Florida law back to the Florida Courts.

4. Federal courts can remand cases back to the state court of origin in removal cases. I happen to know they rarely, if ever, do so. They are clearly and obvious the exceptions, and not the general rule or practice. And when they do remand back, it is usually because they find that the jurisdictional requirements for federal court have not been met.

5. You are incorrect with your belief that a Federal District Court remanded either ACC/Maryland back to state courts. The ACC filed a lawsuit against Maryland in NC Courts and Maryland filed a countersuit in NC Courts. No removal to federal courts. Maryland subsequently filed a suit against the ACC in Maryland state court which was also not removed. Ultimately both were settled.

Atlantic Coast Conference and University of Maryland reach legal agreement (wyff4.com)

Finally, FWIW, you're speaking with a lawyer still in practice for 30 years now that isn't impressed with your reference to personal expertise when asked to provide cite to actual authority to establish your contentions. The things you claim would "likely" happen are actually things that have the most remote likelihood amongst all possible hypotheticals.
Can we stop the pissing contest about who know more about the legal system. Private message each other if you want to get that deep into it.