College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Did this US Supreme Court case abolish sovereign immunity for states ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Did this US Supreme Court case abolish sovereign immunity for states ?

That is from the Florida Supreme Court saying that the Florida legislature waived sovereign immunity for breach of contract actions --- all breach of contract actions based on written contracts. The same result is in every State in the Union. You do not get to contract with a State or a State entity and then claim immunity in a breach of contract suit.

This is Florida saying that the thing you are saying does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

What is your understanding of the outcome of this case ?

To my understanding after a very quick read, it seems to support Florida International University (FIU, not FSU) regarding sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity must be waives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

What is your understanding of the outcome of this case ?

To my understanding after a very quick read, it seems to support Florida International University (FIU, not FSU) regarding sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity must be waives.

The holding of this case is that the waiver does not apply to an implied contract as opposed to a written contract. In reaching this result they reaffirm the rule from Pan Am set out above ---- waived for a written contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Did this US Supreme Court case abolish sovereign immunity for states ?

That is from the Florida Supreme Court saying that the Florida legislature waived sovereign immunity for breach of contract actions --- all breach of contract actions based on written contracts. The same result is in every State in the Union. You do not get to contract with a State or a State entity and then claim immunity in a breach of contract suit.

This is Florida saying that the thing you are saying does not exist.

That is absolutely incorrect. The Supreme Court of Florida is NOT denying the existence of state sovereign immunity. If you think that it is, then I encourage you to do further research as it does not. Facts matter. Each case has its own facts. I have not read this case, but nothing that you have shared in this thread indicates that the Supreme Court of Florida denies the existence of state sovereign immunity.

This is the Florida Supreme Court. What is the legislation ?

Things get tricky & complicated because facts are different in each case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

What is your understanding of the outcome of this case ?

To my understanding after a very quick read, it seems to support Florida International University (FIU, not FSU) regarding sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity must be waives.

The holding of this case is that the waiver does not apply to an implied contract as opposed to a written contract. In reaching this result they reaffirm the rule from Pan Am set out above ---- waived for a written contract.

Do you understand the difference between a "holding" and "dicta" ?

[Anonymous]

Without taking time to read each case and time to read the ACC / FSU contracts, we are not going to resolve the specific case of FSU versus the ACC.

IF you are suggesting that the State of Florida does not have sovereign immunity, then I would like to see the legislation stating this.

[Anonymous]

Going the sovereign immunity route and actually succeeding would be disastrous though. Even FSU may not be crazy enough to try it. Who would sign a deal with a conference that includes a state university after that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Did this US Supreme Court case abolish sovereign immunity for states ?

That is from the Florida Supreme Court saying that the Florida legislature waived sovereign immunity for breach of contract actions --- all breach of contract actions based on written contracts. The same result is in every State in the Union. You do not get to contract with a State or a State entity and then claim immunity in a breach of contract suit.

This is Florida saying that the thing you are saying does not exist.

That is absolutely incorrect. The Supreme Court of Florida is NOT denying the existence of state sovereign immunity. If you think that it is, then I encourage you to do further research as it does not. Facts matter. Each case has its own facts. I have not read this case, but nothing that you have shared in this thread indicates that the Supreme Court of Florida denies the existence of state sovereign immunity.

This is the Florida Supreme Court. What is the legislation ?

Things get tricky & complicated because facts are different in each case.

NO! The Florida Supreme Court says that there is a waiver for any written contract the State or a State agancy enters into. Full Stop. yes there is Soveriegn Immunity but it has been waived whenever the State enters into a contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

What is your understanding of the outcome of this case ?

To my understanding after a very quick read, it seems to support Florida International University (FIU, not FSU) regarding sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity must be waives.

The holding of this case is that the waiver does not apply to an implied contract as opposed to a written contract. In reaching this result they reaffirm the rule from Pan Am set out above ---- waived for a written contract.

Do you understand the difference between a "holding" and "dicta" ?

I do. I am a lawyer. And if a lawyer would tell you that the State can enter a contract and not have to honor it because of Soveriegn Immunity they don't have a clue. Our entire commercial system would fall apart if that were the case.

[Anonymous]

Where does Florida State think it’s going? Independent ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP again)

I am responding to the discussion regarding states sovereign immunity because it isan issue that may be raised if FSU decides to leave the ACC and cannot work out a satisfactory settlement with the ACC and ESPN and other relevant parties who have an interest in the matter.

Again, please read:

https://naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/

As I have written above, the state may waive its sovereign immunity in various ways such as failure to raise this affirmative defense, by legislation, by agreement stipulated in a contract, etc.

Read Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984). There, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in breach of contract actions, stating, “where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would render legislative authorization for such contracting void and meaningless. The Pan-Am Tobacco rule has been reaffirmed and applied dozens of times since 1984, most recently by the Florida Supreme Court in American Home Assurance Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 462 (Fla. 2005).

Or the case here from this year from Florida dealing with a Floridt State University:

https://public.fastcase.com/ZZhmr5v9wN%2FXOe5IsQ%2FqDzRezr6rFFTdx7DtuuWe%2BmOYNwrmLM1%2FHrVMvxnaUdB%2Fdep3ur3VchJf6IKl7zFHmg%3D%3D

What is your understanding of the outcome of this case ?

To my understanding after a very quick read, it seems to support Florida International University (FIU, not FSU) regarding sovereign immunity and that sovereign immunity must be waives.

The holding of this case is that the waiver does not apply to an implied contract as opposed to a written contract. In reaching this result they reaffirm the rule from Pan Am set out above ---- waived for a written contract.

Do you understand the difference between a "holding" and "dicta" ?

I do. I am a lawyer. And if a lawyer would tell you that the State can enter a contract and not have to honor it because of Soveriegn Immunity they don't have a clue. Our entire commercial system would fall apart if that were the case.

You cannot be serious. This issue is frequently litigated.