|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 16, 2023 16:50:49 GMT -8
Just read it on O-live. File briefs by Nov 28th then that gets tight before portal flood gates open on Dec 5th Nothing will be decided by the Portal date. It never was. It's a cluster and OSU/WSU will lucky if the briefs are even reviewed by the portal date. As we all know courts aren't going to be rushed by something the NCAA portal. However, under the Washington Sate SC guidelines this issue does fall into the scope of: "broad public interest and requires a prompt and ultimate determination." The best hope is the once reviewed, the Commissioner and Central Staff decide the case does not deserve a full hearing. Very few of over 1000 petitions are heard by this court, so ?? I heard somewhere that appeals cases are not re-argued before the court only the original presentations, trial record and decision are evaluated. Is that essentially correct? |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Nov 16, 2023 16:53:36 GMT -8
An appeals court accepts the facts as presented in the original trial. But those facts aren't much in dispute, so I think in this case the court has a lot of leeway.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 16, 2023 17:07:17 GMT -8
Nothing will be decided by the Portal date. It never was. It's a cluster and OSU/WSU will lucky if the briefs are even reviewed by the portal date. As we all know courts aren't going to be rushed by something the NCAA portal. However, under the Washington Sate SC guidelines this issue does fall into the scope of: "broad public interest and requires a prompt and ultimate determination." The best hope is the once reviewed, the Commissioner and Central Staff decide the case does not deserve a full hearing. Very few of over 1000 petitions are heard by this court, so ?? I heard somewhere that appeals cases are not re-argued before the court only the original presentations, trial record and decision are evaluated. Is that essentially correct? Essentially... cases are decided on the basis of the previous court record, plus written arguments/briefs that are reviewed by the Commissioner/Staff. If referred to the full court oral arguments are heard with relation to the record and written briefs, exhibits of any kind are generally not allowed and no live testimony is heard. |
|
|
|
Post by wetrodentia on Nov 16, 2023 17:39:53 GMT -8
An appeals court accepts the facts as presented in the original trial. But those facts aren't much in dispute, so I think in this case the court has a lot of leeway. You mean "does not" have a lot of leeway? Otherwise I'm confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 16, 2023 18:05:29 GMT -8
I heard somewhere that appeals cases are not re-argued before the court only the original presentations, trial record and decision are evaluated. Is that essentially correct? Essentially... cases are decided on the basis of the previous court record, plus written arguments/briefs that are reviewed by the Commissioner/Staff. If referred to the full court oral arguments are heard with relation to the record and written briefs, exhibits of any kind are generally not allowed and no live testimony is heard. The appeals court starts by assuming the lower court’s decision was correct. So it plays out like a replay review in which conclusive evidence needs to exist to overturn the original decision. That is why the original ruling was so important. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Nov 16, 2023 18:23:13 GMT -8
An appeals court accepts the facts as presented in the original trial. But those facts aren't much in dispute, so I think in this case the court has a lot of leeway. You mean "does not" have a lot of leeway? Otherwise I'm confused. No, I mean that they have a lot of leeway. The decision was made largely on the judge's evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves. And the court can second-guess that evaluation all day long. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Nov 16, 2023 18:59:31 GMT -8
You mean "does not" have a lot of leeway? Otherwise I'm confused. No, I mean that they have a lot of leeway. The decision was made largely on the judge's evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves. And the court can second-guess that evaluation all day long. Huh? evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves? Calling Joe Friday |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 16, 2023 19:13:00 GMT -8
You mean "does not" have a lot of leeway? Otherwise I'm confused. No, I mean that they have a lot of leeway. The decision was made largely on the judge's evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves. And the court can second-guess that evaluation all day long. I mean sort of? The fundamental question the court will assess is if the lower court made an error in the application of law. That is the purpose of the Appeals court. Whether or not a ruling was in error. or if there was an error in the proceedings. Despite all the blithering of UW this case is about only one fundamental thing: who has the legal right to sit on the board for the Pac-12. I cannot see where the lower court errored in their assessment given the facts of the case. Unless somebody can come up with some precedent, law, rule etc, there really isn't any ground for UW here. This is what it has always been. A panic hail mary by UW when they realized their mistake. I would be absolutely stunned if UW prevailed. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 16, 2023 22:48:51 GMT -8
You mean "does not" have a lot of leeway? Otherwise I'm confused. No, I mean that they have a lot of leeway. The decision was made largely on the judge's evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves. And the court can second-guess that evaluation all day long. Generally speaking, when a trier of fact makes a determination as to what the facts are, an appellate court cannot second-guess those factual determinations. An appellate court generally tries to determine, if the law was successfully applied to the facts, rather than to try and second-guess what the facts are. An example would be, if two witnesses are called. One saw the light as green and the other saw the light as red. After hearing the witnesses, the jury (because usually it's a jury) determined that the light was red and the driver ran the red light. The appellate court must basically assume that the light was red, even if all of the evidence besides the one eyewitness points the other way. The appellate court would then apply the law to the facts to try and determine whether the law was correctly applied. For example, was the running of the red light sufficient to support the jury's finding that the driver who ran the red light was negligent per se or were additional facts needed to be presented or was it simple negligence. The appellate court is also supposed to do everything in its power to find a reason why the trial court was right in its decision, even if it was for the entirely wrong reasons. In our example above, well, even if it was not negligence per se, it still would have been negligence and the damages would have been the same. So the trial court got the result right, even if it biffed the reason for the damages award. The overturning of a trial court's decision is supposed to be rare. And usually the trial court gets it right the vast majority of the time. However, in practice, it has been my experience that there is a reason that cases are appealed. And that is because the trial court really biffed something or because the law is just so nebulous that it probably would have been appealed regardless of the result. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 16, 2023 23:17:25 GMT -8
No, I mean that they have a lot of leeway. The decision was made largely on the judge's evaluation of the facts, not the facts themselves. And the court can second-guess that evaluation all day long. I mean sort of? The fundamental question the court will assess is if the lower court made an error in the application of law. That is the purpose of the Appeals court. Whether or not a ruling was in error. or if there was an error in the proceedings. Despite all the blithering of UW this case is about only one fundamental thing: who has the legal right to sit on the board for the Pac-12. I cannot see where the lower court errored in their assessment given the facts of the case. Unless somebody can come up with some precedent, law, rule etc, there really isn't any ground for UW here. This is what it has always been. A panic hail mary by UW when they realized their mistake. I would be absolutely stunned if UW prevailed. I believe that the University of Washington will argue that Oregon State and Washington State failed to join indispensable parties to the original litigation, namely Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington (and possibly also UCLA and USC). And that the whole thing should have been dismissed in the beginning or Oregon State and Washington State should have been forced to amend to name those schools in the beginning. And there is prejudice in not dismissing it at that time. That is a pretty solid argument. They could make that work. I would not underestimate the University of Washington, especially in Olympia. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Nov 17, 2023 6:19:49 GMT -8
I mean sort of? The fundamental question the court will assess is if the lower court made an error in the application of law. That is the purpose of the Appeals court. Whether or not a ruling was in error. or if there was an error in the proceedings. Despite all the blithering of UW this case is about only one fundamental thing: who has the legal right to sit on the board for the Pac-12. I cannot see where the lower court errored in their assessment given the facts of the case. Unless somebody can come up with some precedent, law, rule etc, there really isn't any ground for UW here. This is what it has always been. A panic hail mary by UW when they realized their mistake. I would be absolutely stunned if UW prevailed. I believe that the University of Washington will argue that Oregon State and Washington State failed to join indispensable parties to the original litigation, namely Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington (and possibly also UCLA and USC). And that the whole thing should have been dismissed in the beginning or Oregon State and Washington State should have been forced to amend to name those schools in the beginning. And there is prejudice in not dismissing it at that time. That is a pretty solid argument. They could make that work. I would not underestimate the University of Washington, especially in Olympia. This is precisely why people should not attempt to play attorney on the internet. Could you expound on what you mean here and is this a possible technical loophole that could reset this whole thing? |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Nov 17, 2023 6:43:10 GMT -8
I believe that the University of Washington will argue that Oregon State and Washington State failed to join indispensable parties to the original litigation, namely Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington (and possibly also UCLA and USC). And that the whole thing should have been dismissed in the beginning or Oregon State and Washington State should have been forced to amend to name those schools in the beginning. And there is prejudice in not dismissing it at that time. That is a pretty solid argument. They could make that work. I would not underestimate the University of Washington, especially in Olympia. This is precisely why people should not attempt to play attorney on the internet. Could you expound on what you mean here and is this a possible technical loophole that could reset this whole thing? Maybe he is saying they could say the ruling only applies to the Huskies? Don't know about the technicalities. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Nov 17, 2023 6:46:09 GMT -8
I believe that the University of Washington will argue that Oregon State and Washington State failed to join indispensable parties to the original litigation, namely Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington (and possibly also UCLA and USC). And that the whole thing should have been dismissed in the beginning or Oregon State and Washington State should have been forced to amend to name those schools in the beginning. And there is prejudice in not dismissing it at that time. That is a pretty solid argument. They could make that work. I would not underestimate the University of Washington, especially in Olympia. This is precisely why people should not attempt to play attorney on the internet. Could you expound on what you mean here and is this a possible technical loophole that could reset this whole thing? sounds like that should have been their argument originally? |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Nov 17, 2023 7:58:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Nov 17, 2023 8:21:40 GMT -8
sounds like that should have been their argument originally?
It was. And the judge ruled that the case could go forward as-is. And that is the sort of decision that an appeals court is allowed to reconsider and possibly overturn.
If the court does so, it doesn't mean that UW "wins". It just means that we get to start over again with all the other schools in the courtroom.
Here's your bad analogy . . . your neighbor gives his car keys to a bunch of 8-year-old kids and tells them to "Do what you want". The kids promptly crash the car into your azaleas. You sue the owner of the car and win. At the trial, the owner claims that the kids were also to blame and argues that they should be included in the suit. The judge disagrees and the case continues with just the car owner involved. After you win the suit, the owner appeals. He argues that the judge was wrong in disallowing the extension of the suit to the kids.
(The wrinkle in the analogy is that it fails to account for how one of the kids, UW, managed to get itself added to the suit, just for the purposes of gaining the ability to appeal.)
Note that the appeal will only consider the one question - was the judge right in excluding the children. In this particular hypothetical, if the court disagrees with the original judge they would likely require a whole new trial (with some shortcuts allowed), but that isn't always the case. They can choose less radical remedies.
Most appeals fail, and my own feeling is that this one will be heard and then rejected. Or, if they send it back, it would be for some minor amendments. The judge was correct in understanding that the other schools are just kids who can only be expected to crash the car.
|
|
