Sidebar

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is way, way off.

The Ramsey case had NOTHING to do with due process and was a STATE court case. The Ramsey case involved a Louisiana statute that provided that Louisiana Horse Racing Board's decisions were reviewable on the preponderance of the evidence standard. This basically means there is a plenary review in court.

The suit was filed in state court, because the state court had the power to reverse the decision.

The only published Federal court of appeals case is Holton v. Indiana Racing Commission. In that case, Judge Easterbrook, a famous Seventh Circuit judge, found that the stewards' decision was unreviewable and no Due Process right existed:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...98/928/597653/

I've read your work and like papillon, I found it to be very disingenuous. Henceforth, I will remember always papillon's comments when I read your posts . . .

Originally Posted by dilanesp
The legal opinion is they got all the process they were due-- a stewards' deliberation, a vote, and a commission appeal which was summarily rejected. That's all the statute says they were entitled to (and if they didn't like the statute, nobody forced them to run in the Derby), and there's no constitutional requirement that decisions of officials in sports events be subject to further review.

So their suit should be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Originally Posted by papillon
No. And since most here have no clue how to even how look up Rule 12, very disingenuous. Rule 12 does not apply unless you can provide an Opinion where any agency regulation, which is what the rule is, stating an agency may summarily deny the right to a meaningful appeal. I'll save you your billable rate, you can't, because their isn't. Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because they are a state agency, not a private entity, they were required to provide a clear, transparent process, both initially and subsequently. The standard is "was the ruling arbitrary and capricious." Key determinants: level of subjectivity in ruling, meaningful right to be heard, level of transparency, meaningful appeals process. What they did to Saez only makes it worse for them.

The question now is way beyond your focus on boilerplate, it is whether the state regulation can stand period. Continuing to address this as a contract case is simply wrong. It is Con Law and Admin Law, not Contracts and Tort. The West's are suing the state of KY for violation of the 14th Amendment.

I said this would be the case. I pegged the fact that a class action lies (as detailed in the claim). Here's number 3: Louis if you're out there, file a simlar suit in the same court. The court will join it sua sponte to the West's and it makes both your cases stronger.

fwiw I was wrong about $42 million being lost on the horse because of the DQ, it was over $100 million.

Some Admin Law professor should assign following this case.