Los Angeles Rams Football Club V. Cannon Essay

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

While “generally newly discovered evidence going only to credibility” is not a basis for setting aside a judgment, it may become so when a

The Philadelphia Ball Club was challenging a judgment from Pennsylvania’s trial court, which refused to enforce an injunction against Lajoie for breach of his contract. The court felt that to do so would render Lajoie so valuable to the ball club that his breach of contract would lead to irreparable damages. The court felt that the player’s value was not that high, and that the language in the contract in which the ball club could discharge the player at anytime without the player being allowed to do the same lead to this decision.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The NCAA moved to dismiss this complaint for summary judgment and the result was that the district court granted this motion.

On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots faced off against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game and proceeded to demoralize them 45-7. After the game a report came out that the Colts had noticed that the air pressure in one of the footballs used in the game was somewhat lower than the league minimum. What ensued was one of the most vexed and frankly ridiculous controversies in NFL history. For months there were disputes both over whether or not the balls were actually under inflated, and later whether or not the team or the quarterback, Tom Brady, knew the balls were tampered with. A massive amount of media coverage was devoted to the argument and the subsequent trial, and in that coverage, many “facts” regarding both the

In support of this position, the government cited two decided decisions by the Court holding that the failure to object to a jury instruction is not controlling “for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Rather, the question of whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict “depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence up to that point in the trial,” not of the content of jury instructions, which are “outside the scope of that analysis.”

“Houston cornerback Kareem Jackson was fined $42,000 for a helmet-to-helmet hit on Tennessee wide receiver Kendall Wright.” That is a statement made often by the National Football League (NFL) committee in light of the frequent occurrences of concussions. The NFL, America’s most popular sport, has constant issues with concussions. It is an important trending topic, which involves the players and the NFL committee. Over the past decades, former players are trying to sue the NFL after being diagnosed with diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Fines, new rules, and suspensions are being put into effect to avoid head-to-head collisions. I argue that the NFL committee has greatly improved

FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.

Intercollegiate sports have been around since the 1850s to promote athletes to play for the love of the game and not for income. Recently, two different decisions have endangered this tradition: the decision by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize the Northwestern University football team as employees of the university and a federal judge’s decision regarding payment to football and men’s basketball players. Both decisions favor the idea of paying NCAA athletes because their games generate massive income; from ticket sales, merchandising, and TV and marketing contracts, that benefit the university, but not the athletes themselves (Majerol). Nonetheless, NCAA athletes should not be paid because of the problems that would arise from

In the case involving Marianne Stanley vs University of Southern California, Marianne Stanley signed a contact with University of southern California on July 30, 1989 to serve as the head coach of the women's basketball team for four years. Stanley's contract expiration date was June 30, 1993, Stanley's contact provided an annual base salary for 60,000 with a 6,000 housing allowance. Around April of 1993, Stanley and Michael Garrett who’s the athletic director, started negotiating on a new contract. However, the confirmation is in debate with regards to the statement made by the Stanley and Garrett. Stanley claims in her statements that she informed Garrett that she was entitled to be paid the same amount as George Raveling, who’s the head

3. Although it does not state the outcome of the case it does state that the judge ordered trial

On July 21, 2009, former University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) basketball star, Edward O’Bannon, Jr filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Electronic Arts (EA) and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) over the use of former and current players’ images in DVD’s, video games, photographs, apparel and other material while prohibiting current and former Division 1 NCAA players from receiving any compensation. Mr. O’Bannon believed this is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). The NCAA disagrees with the charges as presented and stated that the rules regarding compensation to student athletes are necessary to protect collegiate sports and the educational mission of the colleges involved.

Cal was a victim to several negligible acts that resulted in the loss of his legs. On the day in question Cal was a passenger in Abe’s car when it was in a collision with Deb’s vehicle. Although he only sustained minor injuries due to the initial impact, another negligible driver, Ann struck both cars causing Cal more traumatic injuries. Once Cal was at the hospital he was informed that he required a surgery to possibly save his legs, but was never explained the requirements or risks involved if the surgery was successful. He unknowingly consented to the surgery which was an unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of use of both of his legs. After the surgery Cal experienced indescribable amounts of pain and suffering, upon returning to the doctor it was discovered one of the surgeons had left a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg and sewed him up, which required additional surgery for its removal. Based on these facts, Cal has many legal rights to recover damages by those liable for his injuries.

Because of recent court cases such as O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the issue of whether intercollegiate student-athletes should be compensated for their athletic appearances on behalf of colleges has been featured in the news and been the subject of much scholarly writing. This literature review will focus on the major themes discussed in peer reviewed journals and law reviews as well as the main judicial opinions on this issue to this point. As colleges and the NCAA continue to battle over the appropriate role of profit and amateurism