College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[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).

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.

Sorry, but you lose credibility when you use slang terms like "Full Stop".

Facts matter.

It would take many hours, probably days, to read everything involved in the FSU/ACC/ESPM matter regarding GOR.

Plus, does the contract specify that a particular state's laws apply to any dispute arising under this contract ?

FSU has many lines of legal challenges regarding the contract between FSU and ACC/ESPN. We do not know all of the facts.

Few things in law can be stated with certainty, but state sovereign immunity is about as close as we can come to stating with certainty that it exists unless waived in circumstances that apply to a specific case issue.

Litigation costs could certainly run into the millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions in the FSU v. ACC/ESPN matter.

In a Florida Court of Appeals case cited above that reversed the trial court and therefore the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the university, FIU, the state court of appeals did not know the answer so it certified a question to the state of Florida Supreme Court.

State Sovereign Immunity exists unless waived. Whether or not a particular waiver applies to a specific case issue is another matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That issue is not. The issue of what tort you can sue for is litigated as are other issues. The issue of waiver for breach of contract at least in Florida is not frequently litigated because the answer is clear.

[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).

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.

Sorry, but you lose credibility when you use slang terms like "Full Stop".

Facts matter.

It would take many hours, probably days, to read everything involved in the FSU/ACC/ESPM matter regarding GOR.

Plus, does the contract specify that a particular state's laws apply to any dispute arising under this contract ?

FSU has many lines of legal challenges regarding the contract between FSU and ACC/ESPN. We do not know all of the facts.

Few things in law can be stated with certainty, but state sovereign immunity is about as close as we can come to stating with certainty that it exists unless waived in circumstances that apply to a specific case issue.

Litigation costs could certainly run into the millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions in the FSU v. ACC/ESPN matter.

In a Florida Court of Appeals case cited above that reversed the trial court and therefore the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the university, FIU, the state court of appeals did not know the answer so it certified a question to the state of Florida Supreme Court.

State Sovereign Immunity exists unless waived. Whether or not a particular waiver applies to a specific case issue is another matter.

You can say it all you want but read the Pan Am case. In that case the Florida Supreme Court said the legislature waived for all breach of contract actions. It is not case specific.

[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).

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.

Sorry, but you lose credibility when you use slang terms like "Full Stop".

Facts matter.

It would take many hours, probably days, to read everything involved in the FSU/ACC/ESPM matter regarding GOR.

Plus, does the contract specify that a particular state's laws apply to any dispute arising under this contract ?

FSU has many lines of legal challenges regarding the contract between FSU and ACC/ESPN. We do not know all of the facts.

Few things in law can be stated with certainty, but state sovereign immunity is about as close as we can come to stating with certainty that it exists unless waived in circumstances that apply to a specific case issue.

Litigation costs could certainly run into the millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions in the FSU v. ACC/ESPN matter.

In a Florida Court of Appeals case cited above that reversed the trial court and therefore the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the university, FIU, the state court of appeals did not know the answer so it certified a question to the state of Florida Supreme Court.

State Sovereign Immunity exists unless waived. Whether or not a particular waiver applies to a specific case issue is another matter.

Now you are backtracking. This is Florida law which applies to any Soverign Immunity claim for FSU. You can't claim Soverign Immunity outside of your state. So if the suit was in North Carolina --- Soverign Immunity of Florida is largely not relevant and cannot be claimed. Only in Florida is it even relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

Sorry, but you lose credibility when you use slang terms like "Full Stop".

Facts matter.

It would take many hours, probably days, to read everything involved in the FSU/ACC/ESPM matter regarding GOR.

Plus, does the contract specify that a particular state's laws apply to any dispute arising under this contract ?

FSU has many lines of legal challenges regarding the contract between FSU and ACC/ESPN. We do not know all of the facts.

Few things in law can be stated with certainty, but state sovereign immunity is about as close as we can come to stating with certainty that it exists unless waived in circumstances that apply to a specific case issue.

Litigation costs could certainly run into the millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions in the FSU v. ACC/ESPN matter.

In a Florida Court of Appeals case cited above that reversed the trial court and therefore the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the university, FIU, the state court of appeals did not know the answer so it certified a question to the state of Florida Supreme Court.

State Sovereign Immunity exists unless waived. Whether or not a particular waiver applies to a specific case issue is another matter.

Now you are backtracking. This is Florida law which applies to any Soverign Immunity claim for FSU. You can't claim Soverign Immunity outside of your state. So if the suit was in North Carolina --- Soverign Immunity of Florida is largely not relevant and cannot be claimed. Only in Florida is it even relevant.

This is not accurate. You need the facts of a specific case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

Sorry, but you lose credibility when you use slang terms like "Full Stop".

Facts matter.

It would take many hours, probably days, to read everything involved in the FSU/ACC/ESPM matter regarding GOR.

Plus, does the contract specify that a particular state's laws apply to any dispute arising under this contract ?

FSU has many lines of legal challenges regarding the contract between FSU and ACC/ESPN. We do not know all of the facts.

Few things in law can be stated with certainty, but state sovereign immunity is about as close as we can come to stating with certainty that it exists unless waived in circumstances that apply to a specific case issue.

Litigation costs could certainly run into the millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions in the FSU v. ACC/ESPN matter.

In a Florida Court of Appeals case cited above that reversed the trial court and therefore the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the university, FIU, the state court of appeals did not know the answer so it certified a question to the state of Florida Supreme Court.

State Sovereign Immunity exists unless waived. Whether or not a particular waiver applies to a specific case issue is another matter.

You can say it all you want but read the Pan Am case. In that case the Florida Supreme Court said the legislature waived for all breach of contract actions. It is not case specific.

Do you know how lawyers make a living ?

I want to see the legislation that states that the state of Florida has waived sovereign immunity for all breach of contract actions. Either there is legislation or there isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I'm also a lawyer and think this is the more important overall point related to conference media rights. FSU would be making a dangerous move. I also don't think they are seriously considering this route given their decision to hire JP Morgan to raise $$.

[Anonymous]

Is August 15 the big ACC deadline? I know it is coming up quickly. Will FSU do anything this week?

[Anonymous]

Really curious what happens to ACC

[Anonymous]

(OP here)

I want to thank the person or persons who challenged me and contributed Florida cases. Great points & strong arguments, but I have not yet had time to read the cases cited.

Regardless, someone asserted that there is no such thing as state sovereign immunity and that is incorrect. States have sovereign immunity, but they can waive it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I'm also a lawyer and think this is the more important overall point related to conference media rights. FSU would be making a dangerous move. I also don't think they are seriously considering this route given their decision to hire JP Morgan to raise $$.

Maybe. When it comes to money, individuals and institutions will pursue all options if the amount in dispute justifies the time & cost of the fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is August 15 the big ACC deadline? I know it is coming up quickly. Will FSU do anything this week?

Great question because even doing nothing by the Tuesday, August 15, 2023 deadline is "doing something". It may be taken as a sign of weakness or it may be that FSU needs more time. Personally, I will be surprised if FSU does not submit notification of intent to leave the ACC by Tuesday, August 15, 2023.

[Anonymous]

Is sovereign immunity what Nixon had in mind when he said, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is sovereign immunity what Nixon had in mind when he said, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal”?

Could be or it might be that he had a handful of pardons with his name on it ready for distribution.

Historically, Sovereign Immunity is based on the belief that the King can do no wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is sovereign immunity what Nixon had in mind when he said, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal”?

Could be or it might be that he had a handful of pardons with his name on it ready for distribution.

Historically, Sovereign Immunity is based on the belief that the King can do no wrong.

Is this a reference to Elvis ?