the Wests filed suit...

[dilanesp]

"God defend the right...."

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...on/3673250002/

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

"God defend the right...."

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...on/3673250002/

Nice.

Here is the press release and details of the legal complaint . . . no doubt you'll give us a legal opinion.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

"God defend the right...."

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...on/3673250002/

Under section 37(B) of the contract signed by them it's all there clear as crystal.

YouTube

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Nice.

Here is the press release and details of the legal complaint . . . no doubt you'll give us a legal opinion.

The legal opinion is they got all the process they were due-- a stewards' deliberation, a vote, and a commission appeal which was summarily rejected. That's all the statute says they were entitled to (and if they didn't like the statute, nobody forced them to run in the Derby), and there's no constitutional requirement that decisions of officials in sports events be subject to further review.

So their suit should be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).

[The_Turf_Monster]

I can't wait for the #1 to be impeded in next year's derby, a complaint is lodged, and its rejected. Pandora's box was opened with that DQ

[papillon]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The legal opinion is they got all the process they were due-- a stewards' deliberation, a vote, and a commission appeal which was summarily rejected. That's all the statute says they were entitled to (and if they didn't like the statute, nobody forced them to run in the Derby), and there's no constitutional requirement that decisions of officials in sports events be subject to further review.

So their suit should be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).

No. And since most here have no clue how to even how look up Rule 12, very disingenuous. Rule 12 does not apply unless you can provide an Opinion where any agency regulation, which is what the rule is, stating an agency may summarily deny the right to a meaningful appeal. I'll save you your billable rate, you can't, because their isn't. Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because they are a state agency, not a private entity, they were required to provide a clear, transparent process, both initially and subsequently. The standard is "was the ruling arbitrary and capricious." Key determinants: level of subjectivity in ruling, meaningful right to be heard, level of transparency, meaningful appeals process. What they did to Saez only makes it worse for them.

The question now is way beyond your focus on boilerplate, it is whether the state regulation can stand period. Continuing to address this as a contract case is simply wrong. It is Con Law and Admin Law, not Contracts and Tort. The West's are suing the state of KY for violation of the 14th Amendment.

I said this would be the case. I pegged the fact that a class action lies (as detailed in the claim). Here's number 3: Louis if you're out there, file a simlar suit in the same court. The court will join it sua sponte to the West's and it makes both your cases stronger.

fwiw I was wrong about $42 million being lost on the horse because of the DQ, it was over $100 million.

Some Admin Law professor should assign following this case.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by papillon

No. And since most here have no clue how to even how look up Rule 12, very disingenuous. Rule 12 does not apply unless you can provide an Opinion where any agency regulation, which is what the rule is, stating an agency may summarily deny the right to a meaningful appeal. I'll save you your billable rate, you can't, because their isn't. Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because they are a state agency, not a private entity, they were required to provide a clear, transparent process, both initially and subsequently. The standard is "was the ruling arbitrary and capricious." Key determinants: level of subjectivity in ruling, meaningful right to be heard, level of transparency, meaningful appeals process. What they did to Saez only makes it worse for them.

The question now is way beyond your focus on boilerplate, it is whether the state regulation can stand period. Continuing to address this as a contract case is simply wrong. It is Con Law and Admin Law, not Contracts and Tort. The West's are suing the state of KY for violation of the 14th Amendment.

I said this would be the case. I pegged the fact that a class action lies (as detailed in the claim). Here's number 3: Louis if you're out there, file a simlar suit in the same court. The court will join it sua sponte to the West's and it makes both your cases stronger.

fwiw I was wrong about $42 million being lost on the horse because of the DQ, it was over $100 million.

Some Admin Law professor should assign following this case.

1. Rule 12b6 applies because no additional process is due.

2. Here's a simple hypothetical. Let's say the city of Louisville sponsors a municipal softball tournament, with a cash prize. In the championship game, the umpire, a city employee, calls the plaintiff out to end the game, when the plaintiff says he is safe.

The city has an ordinance that all umpire calls are final.

Is a further hearing required on the umpire's call?

3. The statute says stewards' rulings are final. There is no review for "arbitrary and capricious". (At any rate, nothing in the complaint alleges ANY arbitrary and capricious action by the stewards.)

4. Making a referee's ruling in a sports event final does not violate the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the contrary position is frivolous.

5. Bettors can't recover for a separate reason- all bets pay when the results are official. Forward Pass' bettors didn't get paid either.

[parlay]

i miss him. alev a shulem.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by parlay

i miss him. alev a shulem.

He was a great man!

[Blenheim]

Interesting stuff gentlemen.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I have put into bold what I understand to be the most significant points.

Dilanesp
The legal opinion is they got all the process they were due-- a stewards' deliberation, a vote, and a commission appeal which was summarily rejected. That's all the statute says they were entitled to (and if they didn't like the statute, nobody forced them to run in the Derby), and there's no constitutional requirement that decisions of officials in sports events be subject to further review. So their suit should be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Papillon
No. And since most here have no clue how to even how look up Rule 12, very disingenuous. Rule 12 does not apply unless you can provide an opinion where any agency . . . may summarily deny the right to a meaningful appeal. I'll save you your billable rate, you can't, because their isn't. Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because they are a state agency, not a private entity, they were required to provide a clear, transparent process, both initially and subsequently. The standard is "was the ruling arbitrary and capricious.” Key determinants: level of subjectivity in ruling, meaningful right to be heard, level of transparency, meaningful appeals process. What they did to Saez only makes it worse for them.

The question now is way beyond your focus on boilerplate, it is whether the state regulation can stand period. Continuing to address this as a contract case is simply wrong. It is Con[stitutional] Law and Admin[istrative] Law, not Contracts and Tort. The West's are suing the state of KY for violation of the 14th Amendment.

The terms "meaningful appeal" may be important here. Please define.

If the 14th Amendment supersedes Kentucky Statute what, if anything will happen next? Appeal, if so in what Court? Redistribution of purse?; Changing order of finish?; Changing of Kentucky statute? . . .

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Interesting stuff gentlemen.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I have put into bold what I understand to be the most significant points.

[/B]





The terms "meaningful appeal" may be important here. Please define.

If the 14th Amendment supersedes Kentucky Statute what, if anything will happen next? Appeal, if so in what Court? Redistribution of purse?; Changing order of finish?; Changing of Kentucky statute? . . .

What's unclear and nontransparent about "the decision of the stewards is final"?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Under section 37(B) of the contract signed by them it's all there clear as crystal.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQNl4V_R88

Exactly what option do you think owners have regarding these "contracts." Think they're negotiable?

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Exactly what option do you think owners have regarding these "contracts." Think they're negotiable?

No, it's accept the conditions of running in Kentucky or don't run in Kentucky. Now, I wonder which option the Wests chose. Hmm, that's a toughie.

[Blenheim]

Whoa now, easy does it . . . how about we hear from the legal minds first read what they've got to say about the 14th Amendment and the Kentucky Statute, go from there.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Whoa now, easy does it . . . how about we hear from the legal minds first read what they've got to say about the 14th Amendment and the Kentucky Statute, go from there.

How can we have a Triple Crown of three races in five weeks if we have to wait years between the races to find out who really won each one?