|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 17, 2023 10:07:54 GMT -8
The one thing that does not change, at any level of jurisprudence, is the paper trail illustrating that conference protocol was, once you announce you are leaving, you lose your board seat. That is the smoking gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 17, 2023 10:45:46 GMT -8
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? To be 100% fair to ATown, he nails the fact that the University of Washington's facts suck. But as I always say, "When your facts suck, argue the law. When both suck, argue procedure." The University of Washington's argument is procedural. They are arguing that they (and at least six of the other schools) should have been named as Defendants in the original suit. Because they were not, none of anything that has happened is since is valid as to them. (It may have decided the issue as to what the "conference" can do, but it should not be allowed to foreclose the other universities' arguments about the issues previously decided.) It is a very good argument to make in my opinion. However, I do not know Washington law well enough to know, whether it, by itself, is enough to throw out the trial court's decision or whether the University of Washington needs to make an additional showing and whether they are going to argue they had sufficient opportunity to make such showing. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 17, 2023 11:16:31 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. I think you are very right. they are arguing an error in the proceedings. The question will be if it the fact that UW and the other member institutions were allowed to enter the suit sufficient or not. They were granted the right to be party to the suit, they were granted an opportunity at discovery, and they, in fact, were given their day in court, with ample time prior to the date. Is that enough? I guess the Supreme Court of Washington will tell us. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 21, 2023 12:03:58 GMT -8
Anyone know how to access the recording of todays hearing? No. You obviously must want to listen to it too. I am (was?) at a trade show today, but pretty slow. From recollection, FTD had the link, which I pulled up and listened to in my booth. It was interesting (but kinda slow) to listen in, at least for as well as a person can with an iPhone. When it came to judge’s comments it was harder to hear anything. I was glad to have the reporting from others to help connect the missing dots. We are all so hugely invested in our school(s) not getting screwed by “the traitorous 10”… Unfortunately, the judge's voice is not very loud in comparison to the others. |
|
