Originally posted by Hannibal
View Post
It's possible that the TRO was granted ex parte or with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party. Also unconfirmed.
Already mentioned but there's a question of the Michigan court's (or any state court) jurisdiction. That's why the BIG has allegedly requested the case be moved to a Federal Court.
I read "Eleven Warriors" where there is a post that provides osu's legal analysis. It's pretty solid. The language suggests a bias - no surprise.
Good article in the Athletic but it's pay walled. This, in part, provides some insight into obstacles M's lawyers have to overcome:
In order for Michigan and Jim Harbaugh to be granted the temporary restraining order, they are required to demonstrate that immediate and irreparable harm will occur if the court doesn’t, essentially, hit the pause button on the Big Ten’s proposed punishment.
In arguing that irreparable harm is being suffered by the University, the attorneys note not only that the student-athletes of Michigan’s football team would be affected, but that Michigan “prides itself on fairness and integrity,” and that without injunctive relief the University athletics programs will suffer significant injury to its reputation.
Likewise, the brief argues that “no more dramatic blow could be given to [Coach Jim Harbaugh’s] character and reputation that the permanent lifetime label of “missing in action” because of a purported— but still unsubstantiated— cheating scandal.”
Finally, the brief also states that an injunction against the Big Ten is in the public interest, as Michigan is a contender for a national title and “fans have a vested interest in seeing the most deserving team win the title.” — Briley
My understanding is that M's arguments against punishment were framed as procedural and, IMO, there was plenty there to argue. Anticipating they'd lose that argument the BIG pulled a switcharoo here. By , in their mind, punishing the U, not Harbaugh, the BIG sidesteps the due process and procedural arguments M would advance. Petitti claims he has the authority to issue the sanctions granted in the BIG's bylaws and handbook. IMO, that's weak sauce.
Comment