|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 18:42:36 GMT -5
I don't think so, it jumped out right at me. That may be a simpler explanation, but it's not at all rooted in legal principles. That said, I have no problem with you believing it. Edit: for what it's worth, the elements required for a temporary injunction are not at all the "same issues" as prevailing on the merits of their lawsuit. I agree that generally they are not, but in this case, they are the same. Generally, an injunction preserves the status quo or prevents irreparable harm. Had the judge granted the injunction in this case, he would have delivered the same result being requested in the lawsuit. Hmmm, ok. You must have read the briefs to have made that conclusion, because it's not universal. Clearly, you wouldn't read into the article given the admonition you laid on me. Needless to say, I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 18:50:05 GMT -5
I agree that generally they are not, but in this case, they are the same. Generally, an injunction preserves the status quo or prevents irreparable harm. Had the judge granted the injunction in this case, he would have delivered the same result being requested in the lawsuit. Hmmm, ok. You must have read the briefs to have made that conclusion, because it's not universal. Clearly, you wouldn't read into the article given the admonition you laid on me. Needless to say, I disagree. I didn't read the brief. I deduced it from the circumstances described in the article, and I qualified the conclusion as not universal by saying "in this case". What other reasonable remedy/outcome could/would they ask for in the lawsuit? (That's a rhetorical question).
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 19:03:03 GMT -5
OK, it sounds like both of you are lawyers, and I'm an engineer. So please excuse my lack of "being rightness" here. But this is what it looks like to me. Am I off base? Generally, an injunction preserves the status quo or prevents irreparable harm. Isn't that the problem here? The irreparable harm is that the 2015 club season would be over by the time the case winds its way through the legal system, but the status quo is that she doesn't get to transfer. So those two things are in conflict with each other. Had the judge granted the injunction in this case, he would have delivered the same result being requested in the lawsuit. Well, not really. If he granted the injunction but later ruled in favor of the defendants, then the regional rules would be upheld for the future and this would be a one-time deal. As it is now, if he later rules against the defendants, then the regional rules are going to have to be re-written to account for the ruling, even though this girl won't have been able to transfer this year.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Apr 2, 2015 19:09:29 GMT -5
I didn't read the brief. I deduced it from the circumstances described in the article, and I qualified the conclusion as not universal by saying "in this case". What other reasonable remedy/outcome could/would they ask for in the lawsuit? (That's a rhetorical question). This is a standing issue. Nothing you say makes sense to me, but hey...challenge accepted. It won't be hard to have my legal assistant get me a copy of the order. As for your thought that a preliminary injunction is adjudicated the same way the original complaint would be, I'm not obligated to further your legal education so I'm fine with your interpretation. It's what keeps me and my esteemed colleagues in business. Volleyguy laughably tried to school everyone in moral philosophy once, but it failed to spell John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant correctly, let alone cite them correctly. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 19:51:47 GMT -5
OK, it sounds like both of you are lawyers, and I'm an engineer. So please excuse my lack of "being rightness" here. But this is what it looks like to me. Am I off base? Generally, an injunction preserves the status quo or prevents irreparable harm. Isn't that the problem here? The irreparable harm is that the 2015 club season would be over by the time the case winds its way through the legal system, but the status quo is that she doesn't get to transfer. So those two things are in conflict with each other. Had the judge granted the injunction in this case, he would have delivered the same result being requested in the lawsuit. Well, not really. If he granted the injunction but later ruled in favor of the defendants, then the regional rules would be upheld for the future and this would be a one-time deal. As it is now, if he later rules against the defendants, then the regional rules are going to have to be re-written to account for the ruling, even though this girl won't have been able to transfer this year. I don't understand his either/or scenario. I would say an injunction either preserves the status quo or it changes it. I'm operating off memory so I can't give you the cites for this legal standard, but in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, you have to demonstrate that a) your client will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, b) that harm outweighs any harm your opponent may suffer, c) you are likely to succeed on the merits of your claim, and d) injunctive relief is in the public interest. Therefore, injunctions ALWAYS prevent irreparable harm...that's their legal purpose. You've reached the correct logical conclusions that may come from litigation that involve injunctions: an injunction may be granted throughout the pendency of the case only to be overturned later if the court finds for the opposing side, and a judge may decline to grant an injunction, but later find for the party that didn't get that relief. Your application of the facts of this case under this analysis is, yet again, spot on. Have you ever taken the LSAT? I'm only judging from our exchanges on vtalk, but I often think you'd knock that test completely out of the park. Even if you have zero interest in law school, I bet you'd enjoy some of the practice problems...that is until you grow bored after besting every single one of them. #notjealousbutmaybealittle Edit: again, my stance without having seen the order (yet) is that the judge never reached the merits and made no legal analysis. I could be wrong, but it's my gut and I'm being backed into a corner so I'll live and die by my sword. In my interpretation, the judge is sympathetic, probably recognizes the presence of irreparable harm but has his hands tied because he "has no authority to intervene" which is judgespeak for having no jurisdiction over the matter - a result of a plaintiff not having standing to bring suit.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 19:57:29 GMT -5
This is a standing issue. Nothing you say makes sense to me, but hey...challenge accepted. It won't be hard to have my legal assistant get me a copy of the order. As for your thought that a preliminary injunction is adjudicated the same way the original complaint would be, I'm not obligated to further your legal education so I'm fine with your interpretation. It's what keeps me and my esteemed colleagues in business. Volleyguy laughably tried to school everyone in moral philosophy once, but it failed to spell John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant correctly, let alone cite them correctly. LOL Aaahh, it's nice to see that you are getting back to your old self after being smacked by the mods so hard that you woke up thinking you were French. The amnesia is finally wearing off I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 20:03:17 GMT -5
OK, it sounds like both of you are lawyers, and I'm an engineer. So please excuse my lack of "being rightness" here. But this is what it looks like to me. Am I off base? Isn't that the problem here? The irreparable harm is that the 2015 club season would be over by the time the case winds its way through the legal system, but the status quo is that she doesn't get to transfer. So those two things are in conflict with each other. Well, not really. If he granted the injunction but later ruled in favor of the defendants, then the regional rules would be upheld for the future and this would be a one-time deal. As it is now, if he later rules against the defendants, then the regional rules are going to have to be re-written to account for the ruling, even though this girl won't have been able to transfer this year. I don't understand his either/or scenario. I would say an injunction either preserves the status quo or it changes it. I'm operating off memory so I can't give you the cites for this legal standard, but in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, you have to demonstrate that a) your client will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, b) that harm outweighs any harm your opponent may suffer, c) you are likely to succeed on the merits of your claim, and d) injunctive relief is in the public interest. Therefore, injunctions ALWAYS prevent irreparable harm...that's their legal purpose. You've reached the correct logical conclusions that may come from litigation that involve injunctions: an injunction may be granted throughout the pendency of the case only to be overturned later if the court finds for the opposing side, and a judge may decline to grant an injunction, but later find for the party that didn't get that relief. Your application of the facts of this case under this analysis is, yet again, spot on. Have you ever taken the LSAT? I'm only judging from our exchanges on vtalk, but I often think you'd knock that test completely out of the park. Even if you have zero interest in law school, I bet you'd enjoy some of the practice problems...that is until you grow bored after besting every single one of them. #notjealousbutmaybealittle Edit: again, my stance without having seen the order (yet) is that the judge never reached the merits and made no legal analysis. I could be wrong, but it's my gut and I'm being backed into a corner so I'll live and die by my sword. In my interpretation, the judge is sympathetic, probably recognizes the presence of irreparable harm but has his hands tied because he "has no authority to intervene" which is judgespeak for having no jurisdiction over the matter - a result of a plaintiff not having standing to bring suit. Sorry, O, I got distracted by a gnat. I completely understand your point. I got sidetracked by the wording of the article (which did not simply state that the case was dismissed) and my argument stemming from that. The judge saying "I don't have legal authority to intervene... because the plaintiff lacks standing" makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 20:07:57 GMT -5
I don't understand his either/or scenario. I would say an injunction either preserves the status quo or it changes it. I'm operating off memory so I can't give you the cites for this legal standard, but in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, you have to demonstrate that a) your client will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, b) that harm outweighs any harm your opponent may suffer, c) you are likely to succeed on the merits of your claim, and d) injunctive relief is in the public interest. Therefore, injunctions ALWAYS prevent irreparable harm...that's their legal purpose. You've reached the correct logical conclusions that may come from litigation that involve injunctions: an injunction may be granted throughout the pendency of the case only to be overturned later if the court finds for the opposing side, and a judge may decline to grant an injunction, but later find for the party that didn't get that relief. Your application of the facts of this case under this analysis is, yet again, spot on. Have you ever taken the LSAT? I'm only judging from our exchanges on vtalk, but I often think you'd knock that test completely out of the park. Even if you have zero interest in law school, I bet you'd enjoy some of the practice problems...that is until you grow bored after besting every single one of them. #notjealousbutmaybealittle Edit: again, my stance without having seen the order (yet) is that the judge never reached the merits and made no legal analysis. I could be wrong, but it's my gut and I'm being backed into a corner so I'll live and die by my sword. In my interpretation, the judge is sympathetic, probably recognizes the presence of irreparable harm but has his hands tied because he "has no authority to intervene" which is judgespeak for having no jurisdiction over the matter - a result of a plaintiff not having standing to bring suit. Sorry, O, I got distracted by a gnat. I completely understand your point. I got sidetracked by the wording of the article (which did not simply state that the case was dismissed) and my argument stemming from that. The judge saying "I don't have legal authority to intervene... because the plaintiff lacks standing" makes perfect sense. Well, likewise, it's entirely possible you are closer to the actual outcome than I am, but I didn't understand being dismissed when my scenario was at least as plausible as yours. Glad we understand each other.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 20:15:45 GMT -5
Thanks for hanging in there.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 20:38:42 GMT -5
Have you ever taken the LSAT? Me? No. But I took a logic class in college (if P then Q, etc.), and I read a lot. I understand things through analytical reasoning, to the extent that if I'm talking with someone whose mind doesn't tend to go down those paths, I have to work very hard to try to figure out a way to communicate to him or her in a path that will be successful. As an example: track driving. This is a skill that involves practice and feel and also understanding of physics. To progress to an expert level you need all of these things. For me, understanding the physics is the key to unlocking the feel, which I then develop by practice. But to some others, the feel is something they have intuited through practice, and that is what allows them to understand the physics. So I learn things analytically, then understand them by applying that to experience. Many other people find it easier to do the opposite. I used to be active as an instructor, and it was always challenging to me to work with students who drove by feel without really understanding the physics of the car. I learned how to teach them, but it didn't come naturally to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 22:06:38 GMT -5
I like how WaPo calls them "the Juniors" as if Juniors is the mascot and not the name of the club. i like how wapo calls chrva the "league".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 22:11:07 GMT -5
The majority of people sign up to play club, not practice club. every club with which i've been involved -- as a parent and a coach -- makes it very clear that you are paying for instruction, not gameday court time. equal practice opportunity is always guaranteed. playing time is never guaranteed. if the majority of people don't understand this -- assuming the majority of clubs do the same thing -- that's on the people, not the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by rockhopper on Apr 3, 2015 8:15:24 GMT -5
And this is why you should NEVER invite two attorneys to a party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 9:21:26 GMT -5
The majority of people sign up to play club, not practice club. every club with which i've been involved -- as a parent and a coach -- makes it very clear that you are paying for instruction, not gameday court time. equal practice opportunity is always guaranteed. playing time is never guaranteed. if the majority of people don't understand this -- assuming the majority of clubs do the same thing -- that's on the people, not the clubs. I disagree with this. In many cases, especially younger players--the parents do NOT know. What they know is: *Club is supposed to get my daughter a scholarship *The HS coach says she 'needs' to play club. *Usually, paying more means getting something 'better'. And that's about it. There ARE clubs that take great pains to explain their policies regarding playing time and training. But my experience is that far more make promises to suck people in to get their money. Heck--there are two clubs near here that scare parents by saying if their kids change clubs after starting with a specific one, it'll destroy the girl's chances of a college scholarship. I know that's a Goebbels-sized lie, you know it--but most parents don't. The worst of all this is that the kid's name is out there and 'famous' for a bad reason. Adults (on both sides) have put her in the middle of a fight, the very last thing anyone should want for a child.
|
|
|
Post by coachwpassion on Apr 3, 2015 9:26:16 GMT -5
Even if the attorney takes the case on contingency, there are other expenses associated with the suit, e.g., fees for court reporters who provide an official record of depositions, expert witness fees, court fees, etc. The parents are paying alot of money for this foolishness. What college coach would want this young lady on his team after all this? If it's her recruiting season it could hurt. however, if they can give a full refund maybe the parents could sue the $ to pay for camps, private lessons, etc.
|
|