|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 5, 2011 15:24:31 GMT -5
True. However, any half competent teacher/coach who was aware of the issue should have been able to foresee that this set of circumstances was going to generate friction, and taken steps to defuse the situation. Of course, that does assume that the teachers/coaches involved were aware of the situation. I guess if they weren't, it could be seen as "stupid angsty teenager crap". Oh, I agree with you. The entire situation was handled very poorly. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 15:27:46 GMT -5
You asked for a cite about court costs. I gave you one. If you do not want people to answer you questions, don't ask questions. I asked for a citation for her specific claim. Nice strawman, though. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 5, 2011 15:42:49 GMT -5
I asked for a citation for her specific claim. Nice strawman, though. Now I'm confused. Are you looking for a citation for the cheerleaders claim? |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 15:49:18 GMT -5
Did I quote the cheerleader?
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 5, 2011 18:47:20 GMT -5
You asked for a cite about court costs. I gave you one. If you do not want people to answer you questions, don't ask questions. I asked for a citation for her specific claim. Nice strawman, though. How is this for a cite? "Civil Procedure: Case and Problems, Third Edition" Allen Ides and Christopher May. Aspen Publishers. copyright 2009. "Torts Cases, Problems and Exercises" Russell L. Weaver, et al. LexisNexis Publishing. copyright 2009. BTW, I am still waiting for you to answer the question I asked. How many cases have you read? |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 19:31:01 GMT -5
Does it actually back up what she said? If not, still wasting my time.
And totally failing to justify the dickish way you responded, given you couldn't even read the issue at hand and answered something else. Multiple times.
And enough. I don't have numbers. Know why? No sane person keeps count.
I answered it, though probably not the way you want it answered, so you will probably whine.
She can't back up her assertion. You can't back up her assertion and in fact demonstrated counter to her assertion. So...Ummm...Good on ya fer literacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 5, 2011 19:40:50 GMT -5
Does it actually back up what she said? If not, still wasting my time. And totally failing to justify the dickish way you responded, given you couldn't even read the issue at hand and answered something else. Multiple times. And enough. I don't have numbers. Know why? No sane person keeps count. I answered it, though probably not the way you want it answered, so you will probably whine. She can't back up her assertion. You can't back up her assertion and in fact demonstrated counter to her assertion. So...Ummm...Good on ya fer literacy? No, at this point your wasting everyone's time. Yes, sylvana that it was all legal cases that the losing party must pay the winnings parties legal fees. No, that is not technically correct, but in a good number of civil cases that does end up happening. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 19:43:40 GMT -5
Though I am curious why this discussion even continues. You yourself precluded the initial statement as true, in that the court costs do not always follow the case. Everything beyond that seems to be utterly pointless. You yourself demonstrated the initial claim to be false, end of story. Unless you have new evidence that demonstrates the opposite of what you already professed, you have no remaining argument.
I don't care if they do sometimes or even frequently, or generally do with conditional modifiers tacked on, because none of those were what was claimed, what I took issue with, what even you have admitted is untrue.
That being said, I look forward to the NEXT ten pages of bullshit lawyering/
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 19:45:40 GMT -5
No, at this point your wasting everyone's time. Yes, sylvana that it was all legal cases that the losing party must pay the winnings parties legal fees. No, that is not technically correct, but in a good number of civil cases that does end up happening. Get over it. Funny, you two are the ones who keep coming back to it. Given everything you just said, you should have "got over it" before you ever posted, and eric as well. But have fun casting those stones from that glass house. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 5, 2011 19:49:27 GMT -5
So didn't we go through this over at TPWW?
Ironbite-I swear we did.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 5, 2011 21:11:12 GMT -5
Does it actually back up what she said? If not, still wasting my time. Why don't you read the books and find out? (I will give you a hint. They back up what I have been saying. ) Who is wasting whose time here? You asked for a cite. I gave you two. If you don't like my answers, why did you ask for a cite to begin with? What dickish way? Pointing you to the language that answered your original question, which, btw, is what I did the first time I answered? You wanted a cite that shows losers pay the winner's court costs. I told you the language that shows that. I did concede that if the winner does not ask, they don't get court costs. To that extent, sylviana's statement was incorrect. However, her statement was correct in the (majority of) cases when court costs are filed for. But again, that wasn't enough for you. So now I gave you two cites that you can look up if you choose. But those still don't seem to be enough for you either. Is there a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that says courts shall always grant court costs to a winner who asks for them? No. As I said before, the cases where courts have discussed the granting of court costs are in a database that costs about $1000/year. (Roughly.) I am sorry that I cannot give you a link, but that is the reality. So you have seen the language that I mentioned when I first answered your question. (As an aside, I suspect I've read more.) |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 6, 2011 9:18:59 GMT -5
At the risk of getting myself flamed, I looked up the appeals court holding for this case. Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 402 Fed. Appx. 852 (5th Cir. 2010). Having read that, it does make more sense. The suit against the school was dismissed by the trial court for failure to make a claim. "To state a claim... a plaintiff must allege that a state actor has violated 'a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" The claim against the DA thatthe girl and her family tried to argue was that the DA defamed the girl's reputation in a press conference after the grand jury chose not to indict the alleged rapist. "Our case law 'does not establish the proposition that reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interest such as employment, is either "liberty" or "property" by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause." (long list of cites omitted). So dismissal of the claim against the DA was valid. The girl and her family tried to argue that she had a property interest in her position on the cheerleading squad and that she was deprived of that interest when she was removed. "' tudents do not possess a constitutionally protected interest in their participation in extracurricular activities.' NCAA v. Yeo, 171 S.W.3d 863, 865 (Tex. 2005). Moreover, according to the terms of H.S.'s cheerleading contract, her failure to cheer constituted valid grounds for her removal from the cheer squad. Accordingly, the district court was correct in dismissing Appellants' claim for unconstitutional deprivation of property."
The girl and her family tried to argue an equal protection claim, saying she was being treated differently because she is female. " showing of discriminatory intent or purpose is required to establish a valid equal protection claim. [(long list of cites omitted).] Because Appellants make no showing that H.S.'s gender motivated any of Appellees' actions, their equal protection argument fails."
The girl argued the DA deprived her of her Free Speech rights, but did not she how the DA retaliated against her for filing the rape claim. So that one also fell.
Finally, the girl claimed the school deprived her of her Free Speech by kicking her off the team when she refused to cheer for the alleged rapist. First, to be protected, the statement must convey a particularized message that could be understood by those who saw it. But even assuming her statement did convey such a message, "student speech is not protected when that speech would 'substantially interfere with the work of the school.'" (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)). She was a representative of the school. While schools must tolerate student speech, they do not have to promote such speech. "Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 6, 2011 16:44:34 GMT -5
At the risk of getting myself flamed, I looked up the appeals court holding for this case. Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 402 Fed. Appx. 852 (5th Cir. 2010). Having read that, it does make more sense. The suit against the school was dismissed by the trial court for failure to make a claim. "To state a claim... a plaintiff must allege that a state actor has violated 'a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" The claim against the DA thatthe girl and her family tried to argue was that the DA defamed the girl's reputation in a press conference after the grand jury chose not to indict the alleged rapist. "Our case law 'does not establish the proposition that reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interest such as employment, is either "liberty" or "property" by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause." (long list of cites omitted). So dismissal of the claim against the DA was valid. The girl and her family tried to argue that she had a property interest in her position on the cheerleading squad and that she was deprived of that interest when she was removed. "' tudents do not possess a constitutionally protected interest in their participation in extracurricular activities.' NCAA v. Yeo, 171 S.W.3d 863, 865 (Tex. 2005). Moreover, according to the terms of H.S.'s cheerleading contract, her failure to cheer constituted valid grounds for her removal from the cheer squad. Accordingly, the district court was correct in dismissing Appellants' claim for unconstitutional deprivation of property."
The girl and her family tried to argue an equal protection claim, saying she was being treated differently because she is female. " showing of discriminatory intent or purpose is required to establish a valid equal protection claim. [(long list of cites omitted).] Because Appellants make no showing that H.S.'s gender motivated any of Appellees' actions, their equal protection argument fails."
The girl argued the DA deprived her of her Free Speech rights, but did not she how the DA retaliated against her for filing the rape claim. So that one also fell.
Finally, the girl claimed the school deprived her of her Free Speech by kicking her off the team when she refused to cheer for the alleged rapist. First, to be protected, the statement must convey a particularized message that could be understood by those who saw it. But even assuming her statement did convey such a message, "student speech is not protected when that speech would 'substantially interfere with the work of the school.'" (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)). She was a representative of the school. While schools must tolerate student speech, they do not have to promote such speech. "Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."
Thanks for that. |
|
