There needs to be a YouTube video for this thread with a lawyer that specializes in this area of law. You could title it "22 pages of sports fans thinking they are lawyers". It would go perfectly with those lawyers review law movies that are pretty funny and popular.

Pretty much no one in this thread knows what will happen. The AD of your school might be closest to knowing what will happen, but even they aren't sure as when lawyers get involved things can go weird quick. Also all lawyers and judges will not have the same opinion. What would be awarded if you had one group of lawyers will not be the same thing you would get from another group of lawyers.

(02-13-2022 06:18 PM)MUther Wrote:  [quote='Eagleyed' pid='18074619' dateline='1644949324']
There needs to be a YouTube video for this thread with a lawyer that specializes in this area of law. You could title it "22 pages of sports fans thinking they are lawyers". It would go perfectly with those lawyers review law movies that are pretty funny and popular.

Pretty much no one in this thread knows what will happen. The AD of your school might be closest to knowing what will happen, but even they aren't sure as when lawyers get involved things can go weird quick. Also all lawyers and judges will not have the same opinion. What would be awarded if you had one group of lawyers will not be the same thing you would get from another group of lawyers.

Not to derail this thread further, but I was recovering from surgery when there was a high profile self defense case being tried and there was a lawyer who live streamed it like gamers do on Twitch. Put together a whole panel of lawyers in different specialties. They'd explain stuff as it went on then gave legal opinions with quoted laws and precedence during breaks.
I'd pay to get local lawyers from TX, Hattiesburg, Huntington, and Norfolk to do something similar. At the very least put the four together to hash it out for a half hour video lmao

(02-15-2022 02:33 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 06:18 PM)MUther Wrote:  [quote='Eagleyed' pid='18074619' dateline='1644949324']
There needs to be a YouTube video for this thread with a lawyer that specializes in this area of law. You could title it "22 pages of sports fans thinking they are lawyers". It would go perfectly with those lawyers review law movies that are pretty funny and popular.

Pretty much no one in this thread knows what will happen. The AD of your school might be closest to knowing what will happen, but even they aren't sure as when lawyers get involved things can go weird quick. Also all lawyers and judges will not have the same opinion. What would be awarded if you had one group of lawyers will not be the same thing you would get from another group of lawyers.

Not to derail this thread further, but I was recovering from surgery when there was a high profile self defense case being tried and there was a lawyer who live streamed it like gamers do on Twitch. Put together a whole panel of lawyers in different specialties. They'd explain stuff as it went on then gave legal opinions with quoted laws and precedence during breaks.
I'd pay to get local lawyers from TX, Hattiesburg, Huntington, and Norfolk to do something similar. At the very least put the four together to hash it out for a half hour video lmao

The bylaws will have a section saying which state law controls the agreement. No need for any attorneys from other jurisdictions.

(02-15-2022 01:22 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  There needs to be a YouTube video for this thread with a lawyer that specializes in this area of law. You could title it "22 pages of sports fans thinking they are lawyers". It would go perfectly with those lawyers review law movies that are pretty funny and popular.

Pretty much no one in this thread knows what will happen. The AD of your school might be closest to knowing what will happen, but even they aren't sure as when lawyers get involved things can go weird quick. Also all lawyers and judges will not have the same opinion. What would be awarded if you had one group of lawyers will not be the same thing you would get from another group of lawyers.

And it could easily be different based upon which state's laws are applied.

(02-15-2022 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The bylaws will have a section saying which state law controls the agreement. No need for any attorneys from other jurisdictions.

1 please point out where it says that. We're under the assumption that it'll be Texas (because it makes the most sense since Civil suites are typically heard in the plantiffs district)
2 local attorneys are still relevant. Unless somewhere in your misreading of the bylaws it states we have to use conference attorneys as well.
Local attorneys would be vital to explain the position of each individual school
3 you're also supposing we don't counter sue in our own districts. Been done before with other teams and other conferences

Now me and the other poster were talking in jest and trying to add some entertainment to a heated thread with a bunch of people only reading parts if the bylaws and misinterpreting the ones they do read to fit their narrative

(02-15-2022 03:28 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The bylaws will have a section saying which state law controls the agreement. No need for any attorneys from other jurisdictions.

1 please point out where it says that. We're under the assumption that it'll be Texas (because it makes the most sense since Civil suites are typically heard in the plantiffs district)
2 local attorneys are still relevant. Unless somewhere in your misreading of the bylaws it states we have to use conference attorneys as well.
Local attorneys would be vital to explain the position of each individual school
3 you're also supposing we don't counter sue in our own districts. Been done before with other teams and other conferences

Now me and the other poster were talking in jest and trying to add some entertainment to a heated thread with a bunch of people only reading parts if the bylaws and misinterpreting the ones they do read to fit their narrative

1) Almost all contracts will have both a choice of law and a venue provision. Problem is that the full bylaws are an exceedingly hard document to find. But, I would bet dollars to donuts that those provisions are in there. If a choice of law or choice of venue isnt in there, that is a serious f-- up.

1a) 'heard in the plaintiff's district' -- maybe. But venue provision can be set by contract. And most contracts set that.

1c) venue does not equal what law applies. Venue is not choice of law. Choice of law is a provision that will say 'This agreement shall be construed under (name your state) law. In the event of dispute under this agreement, Texas law, except for choice of law provisions, shall govern the proceedings'. The parties are agreeing *which* state laws apply.

Venue provision is where any disagreements are litigated. For example -- 'Any proceedings under or related to this agreement shall be decided exclusively in the courts located in (pick your county), (pick your state)'.

And, nothing prohibits a state or federal court located in one state (the venue) to apply the law of another state.

2) No, local attorneys are not relevant. The state law position of Mississippi would be wholly irrelevant if a choice of law other than Mississippi is in the bylaws.

3) A choice of venue clause would preclude a 'counter suit in their own districts'.

3a) Further, most state laws have provisions that if a suit is filed, then the proper venue for any counter claims is where the original suit is filed.

3b) And, counter claims on the agreement would be mandatory counter claims in the original suit.

So, if the choice of law in the bylaws is Texas law, then the only law that applies would be Texas law. If the choice of venue is also in it, then the venue is set by contract as well.

Now, if the choice of law is Texas law, and the venue is Texas, foreign (i.e. non-Texas licensed) attorneys *can* be admitted on a onesy basis to litigate only that particular matter. But that has to be approved by a court.

But to repeat, I dont know for sure that a coice of law or choice of venue is present in the overall agreement. 99.9% of the agreements I have worked in in the last 26 years do have them. But this one may not. If it does, I dont have knowledge of which law is to be used, or which venue. But Texas stands out as the logical choice.

If it doesnt, it is one major league oversight.

This dumb thread got moved over here? I hope the people arguing can't find it and it fades away.

(02-15-2022 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1) Almost all contracts will have both a choice of law and a venue provision. Problem is that the full bylaws are an exceedingly hard document to find. But, I would bet dollars to donuts that those provisions are in there. If a choice of law or choice of venue isnt in there, that is a serious f-- up.

1a) 'heard in the plaintiff's district' -- maybe. But venue provision can be set by contract. And most contracts set that.

1c) venue does not equal what law applies. Venue is not choice of law. Choice of law is a provision that will say 'This agreement shall be construed under (name your state) law. In the event of dispute under this agreement, Texas law, except for choice of law provisions, shall govern the proceedings'. The parties are agreeing *which* state laws apply.

Venue provision is where any disagreements are litigated. For example -- 'Any proceedings under or related to this agreement shall be decided exclusively in the courts located in (pick your county), (pick your state)'.

And, nothing prohibits a state or federal court located in one state (the venue) to apply the law of another state.

2) No, local attorneys are not relevant. The state law position of Mississippi would be wholly irrelevant if a choice of law other than Mississippi is in the bylaws.

3) A choice of venue clause would preclude a 'counter suit in their own districts'.

3a) Further, most state laws have provisions that if a suit is filed, then the proper venue for any counter claims is where the original suit is filed.

3b) And, counter claims on the agreement would be mandatory counter claims in the original suit.

So, if the choice of law in the bylaws is Texas law, then the only law that applies would be Texas law. If the choice of venue is also in it, then the venue is set by contract as well.

Now, if the choice of law is Texas law, and the venue is Texas, foreign (i.e. non-Texas licensed) attorneys *can* be admitted on a onesy basis to litigate only that particular matter. But that has to be approved by a court.

But to repeat, I dont know for sure that a coice of law or choice of venue is present in the overall agreement. 99.9% of the agreements I have worked in in the last 26 years do have them. But this one may not. If it does, I dont have knowledge of which law is to be used, or which venue. But Texas stands out as the logical choice.

If it doesnt, it is one major league oversight.

The part I put in bold is the reason I'm not taking anything you say serious.
It amazes me how you can dismiss the opinions of people closer to the situation to explain em to the the public. JFC. For Rice being an "acedemic" University they sure don't cover common sense.
You can absolutely counter sue in another district. Please tell me you don't do legal stuff as your day time job. And no, I don't, I've just been a defendant quite a few times.

(02-15-2022 04:01 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1) Almost all contracts will have both a choice of law and a venue provision. Problem is that the full bylaws are an exceedingly hard document to find. But, I would bet dollars to donuts that those provisions are in there. If a choice of law or choice of venue isnt in there, that is a serious f-- up.

1a) 'heard in the plaintiff's district' -- maybe. But venue provision can be set by contract. And most contracts set that.

1c) venue does not equal what law applies. Venue is not choice of law. Choice of law is a provision that will say 'This agreement shall be construed under (name your state) law. In the event of dispute under this agreement, Texas law, except for choice of law provisions, shall govern the proceedings'. The parties are agreeing *which* state laws apply.

Venue provision is where any disagreements are litigated. For example -- 'Any proceedings under or related to this agreement shall be decided exclusively in the courts located in (pick your county), (pick your state)'.

And, nothing prohibits a state or federal court located in one state (the venue) to apply the law of another state.

2) No, local attorneys are not relevant. The state law position of Mississippi would be wholly irrelevant if a choice of law other than Mississippi is in the bylaws.

3) A choice of venue clause would preclude a 'counter suit in their own districts'.

3a) Further, most state laws have provisions that if a suit is filed, then the proper venue for any counter claims is where the original suit is filed.

3b) And, counter claims on the agreement would be mandatory counter claims in the original suit.

So, if the choice of law in the bylaws is Texas law, then the only law that applies would be Texas law. If the choice of venue is also in it, then the venue is set by contract as well.

Now, if the choice of law is Texas law, and the venue is Texas, foreign (i.e. non-Texas licensed) attorneys *can* be admitted on a onesy basis to litigate only that particular matter. But that has to be approved by a court.

But to repeat, I dont know for sure that a coice of law or choice of venue is present in the overall agreement. 99.9% of the agreements I have worked in in the last 26 years do have them. But this one may not. If it does, I dont have knowledge of which law is to be used, or which venue. But Texas stands out as the logical choice.

If it doesnt, it is one major league oversight.

The part I put in bold is the reason I'm not taking anything you say serious.
It amazes me how you can dismiss the opinions of people closer to the situation to explain em to the the public. JFC. For Rice being an "acedemic" University they sure don't cover common sense.
You can absolutely counter sue in another district. Please tell me you don't do legal stuff as your day time job. And no, I don't, I've just been a defendant quite a few times.

Most states have provisions that if a counterclaim is inherently tied to an original claim, they must be tried together.

Basic venue and choice of law of just, well, uh........ basic. Somehow you think they are the same, but that doesnt seem to stop you from opining on that misperception. Well, free country and all that jazz, sparky.

If you want to confuse the two and mismatch a whole bunch of other ****, please feel free to do so.


And, given your deep insight into the law, mark me as unsurprised that you have 'been a defendant quite a few times.'

At its' essence this thread is about current members of the same conference arguing over their divorce. How is does that qualify the thread for the Realignment board?

(02-15-2022 09:12 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  At its' essence this thread is about current members of the same conference arguing over their divorce. How is does that qualify the thread for the Realignment board?

Some new Mod is power hungry. And not very smart. Im sure they have heard that before though.

(02-15-2022 04:01 PM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1) Almost all contracts will have both a choice of law and a venue provision. Problem is that the full bylaws are an exceedingly hard document to find. But, I would bet dollars to donuts that those provisions are in there. If a choice of law or choice of venue isnt in there, that is a serious f-- up.

1a) 'heard in the plaintiff's district' -- maybe. But venue provision can be set by contract. And most contracts set that.

1c) venue does not equal what law applies. Venue is not choice of law. Choice of law is a provision that will say 'This agreement shall be construed under (name your state) law. In the event of dispute under this agreement, Texas law, except for choice of law provisions, shall govern the proceedings'. The parties are agreeing *which* state laws apply.

Venue provision is where any disagreements are litigated. For example -- 'Any proceedings under or related to this agreement shall be decided exclusively in the courts located in (pick your county), (pick your state)'.

And, nothing prohibits a state or federal court located in one state (the venue) to apply the law of another state.

2) No, local attorneys are not relevant. The state law position of Mississippi would be wholly irrelevant if a choice of law other than Mississippi is in the bylaws.

3) A choice of venue clause would preclude a 'counter suit in their own districts'.

3a) Further, most state laws have provisions that if a suit is filed, then the proper venue for any counter claims is where the original suit is filed.

3b) And, counter claims on the agreement would be mandatory counter claims in the original suit.

So, if the choice of law in the bylaws is Texas law, then the only law that applies would be Texas law. If the choice of venue is also in it, then the venue is set by contract as well.

Now, if the choice of law is Texas law, and the venue is Texas, foreign (i.e. non-Texas licensed) attorneys *can* be admitted on a onesy basis to litigate only that particular matter. But that has to be approved by a court.

But to repeat, I dont know for sure that a coice of law or choice of venue is present in the overall agreement. 99.9% of the agreements I have worked in in the last 26 years do have them. But this one may not. If it does, I dont have knowledge of which law is to be used, or which venue. But Texas stands out as the logical choice.

If it doesnt, it is one major league oversight.

The part I put in bold is the reason I'm not taking anything you say serious.
It amazes me how you can dismiss the opinions of people closer to the situation to explain em to the the public. JFC. For Rice being an "acedemic" University they sure don't cover common sense.
You can absolutely counter sue in another district. Please tell me you don't do legal stuff as your day time job. And no, I don't, I've just been a defendant quite a few times.

clt says you are the best! Chef’s kiss.

If I am not mistaken, WV law states that Marshall cannot be sued in any state other than WV, so this should be fun.

(02-17-2022 09:23 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If I am not mistaken, WV law states that Marshall cannot be sued in any state other than WV, so this should be fun.

That's interesting. Maybe this will most likely be filed in federal court with the 5th circuit.