re: Attorney for players once bound for LSU plans legal action against SEC, Greg Sankey

Seminal tortious interference cases are dependent on the state (which is likely where the cases would be heard). But the one I recall as a foundational case is Leigh Furniture v. Isom (Utah Supreme Court).

I did not go to law school in Utah. I will go read that case now

quote:

---

You can’t pick and choose which court orders you will follow.

---

If the SEC wins the federal suit, no state court matters.

quote:

---

I did not go to law school in Utah

---

Neither did I. But it's a pretty well-established cause of action... it's defined in the 2nd Restatement of Torts.

My word you really don’t know. Here’s a hint…where is the SEC office located? There’s your answer.

quote:

---

My word you really don’t know. Here’s a hint…where is the SEC office located? There’s your answer.

---

You said people would guess wrong, and then are hinting at one of the most often suggested offenders, and one that I put in my post.

You're failing at being clever. Just fricking say what you think you know.

How about you do a Lexis search on self governance and if they have to demonstrate equal distribution of punishment

quote:

---

Lmao now I know you’re even more full of shite and haven’t even kept up with the cases outside LSU. He’s on UT’s roster genius!

---

I posted an article from yesterday stating UT sees him as ineligible as of the story's reporting. Do you have a more recent article?

Better yet, what has the higher court called these players in college athletes who earn money???

They are not only deemed professionals but employees.

That’s all that matters now and in the future so keep taking the SEC’s stance. That is a dead end road with or without this whole circus they’ve created with LSU and you are acting as a lead clown for the circus!

quote:

---

I don't see what cause of action they have, especially without including LSU.

LSU and the players have to operate under the guise that there was never an agreement with LSU, and I believe they even testified as much. This is to avoid LSU admitting the coordination that would potentially be really bad for LSU.

So these players didn't even have agreements with LSU for anything. How can they project that into liability to the SEC? There isn't even a contract with LSU for the SEC to interfere with. The players have no direct association with the SEC upon which to sue them.

---

Your focus is too narrow in that the players would be seeking relief to play specifically for LSU. I suspect the cause of action would be something along the lines of an antitrust claim.

The players sought an injunction against the NCAA to prohibit the NCAA from being allowed to enforce its rule that the player were ineligible to play college football. The court granted it on a temporary basis. THEN the SEC got together and pass a conference rule specifically targeting that class of players (even though the conference will argue it did not) to prohibit them from playing for an SEC school...i.e. excluding them from a potential market.

LSU was operating under the fact that, by court order, the NCAA was enjoined from enforcing its rule prohibiting these players from playing CFB. The SEC then sued LSU arguing that LSU was breaking SEC, not NCAA rules, by recruiting these players. The unproven and unsubstantiated theory is that LSU "encouraged" the players to break SEC rules. The TRO was then upheld. Which arguably means the players aren't in violation of NCAA rules if they play this year.

By taking the action that it did, when it did, the argument is the SEC targeted this specific class of players to exclude them from the marketplace...something the SEC did not do on the numerous other occasions when players sought injunctions against the NCAA. The SEC will essentially argue that its actions are not monopolistic because they were just seeking a declaration that it should be allowed to enforce its conference rules relative to a member institution. I'm not certain how broadly that position can be interpreted because it is difficult to argue the NCAA and the major conferences don't have a monopoly over the highly lucrative college football and basketball marketplace.

The SEC may feel it has won the battle here. But it's very possible it is opening itself up further to losing the war