Friday, February 17, 2012

College Football ProDays This Spring 2012

From NFL.com


Pro days by date:

March 1: Missouri
March 2: Cincinnati
March 5: Alabama-Birmingham, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, McNeese State
March 6: Alabama A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, California Lutheran, Clark, Eastern Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Liberty, Rhode Island, Sacramento State, Tarleton State, UCLA, Valdosta State

March 7: Alabama, California, California-Davis, Colgate, Eastern Washington, Fordham, Fort Valley, Kent State, Kentucky, Louisville, Northern Colorado, Oklahoma State, Southern California, Texas A&M, UTEP, Wisconsin, Weber State

March 8: Alabama State, Buffalo, Clemson, Colorado, Miami (Fla.), Mississippi State, Nebraska, North Alabama, Northwestern, Ohio, Syracuse, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Utah State, Washington, West Texas, Western Kentucky, Wofford, Wyoming, Youngstown State

March 9: Florida International, Furman, Mississippi, Montana, Northern Illinois, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Presbyterian, Purdue, TCU, Troy, Washington State
March 12: Air Force, Arkansas-Monticello, Central Michigan, Central Washington, Pittsburgh, Tulsa

March 13: Ball State, California (Pa.), Florida, Kansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Marshall, Maryland, North Texas, Slippery Rock, Toledo, Western Michigan

March 14: Bowling Green, California, Central Arkansas, Central Oklahoma, Eastern Michigan, Florida State, Grambling, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisiana-Monroe, Maryland, Michigan State, Mount Union, Oklahoma, Old Dominion, Penn State, Portland State, Tennessee Tech

March 15: Delaware State, Louisiana Tech, Michigan, UNLV, Nicholls State, Oregon, Southern Illinois, Townson, Tusculum, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wayne State (Mich.), William & Mary

March 16: Arizona State, James Madison, Missouri State, Oregon State, Richmond, Temple, Tennessee, West Virginia

March 19: Appalachian State, Arizona, Florida Atlantic, Iowa, LSU, Montana State, Rice, Southern, Wake Forest

March 20: Brown, Fresno State, Idaho, Iowa State, Louisiana-Lafayette, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Carolina A&T, South Florida, Texas, Tulane

March 21: Boston College, Houston, Nevada, North Carolina State, North Dakota State, Rutgers, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulane, Western Kentucky

March 22: Baylor, Boise State, East Carolina, Maine, Memphis, Middle Tennessee State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Stanford, Tennessee-Chattanooga

March 23: Cornell, Jackson State, Missouri Western, N.C. Central, Southern Mississippi, Stonybrook, Vanderbilt

March 24: Arizona State
March 26: Indiana State
March 27: Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Stephen F. Austin, Washburn
March 28: Central Florida, Connecticut, Newberry, Northern Iowa, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Carolina State
March 29: Brigham Young, Georgia Southern
March 30: Bethune-Cookman, Dartmouth
April 3: Abilene Christian, Notre Dame
April 4: SMU
April 6: McNeese State

Jeremy Lin's Agent

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46374209

Good read on LINSANITY's Agent, who stuck with him through the ups and downs....

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Ready, Willing, Able

Pesa v. Yoma Development Group, Inc.
2/9/2012
Court of Appeals

REAL PROPERTY LAW. CONTRACTS. REPUDIATION BY SELLER. DAMAGES. BUYER’S BURDEN OF PROOF. “READY, WILLING AND ABLE” TO CLOSE STANDARD. APPLICABILITY. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. Plaintiffs (buyers) brought an action for specific performance and to recover down payments on three mortgage contingency contracts after the seller: (1) failed to build houses on the properties and provide certificates of occupancy, as required by the contracts; and (2) allegedly repudiated the contracts by assigning them to an affiliated company (defendant). After plaintiffs’ cause of action for specific performance was dismissed, both parties moved summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, but granted partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, without regard to whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close title, on the ground that the seller had anticipatorily breached the contracts by transferring title to its affiliate (defendant). The Second Department affirmed, holding that “a purchaser seeking damages for the seller’s anticipatory breach of a contract for the sale of real property is not required to establish, as an element of the claim, that it was ready, willing and able to close, though such a showing would be required if the buyers were seeking specific performance.” The Court of Appeals modifies by denying the plaintiffs’ motion as well. The issue of whether a buyer must prove having been “ready, willing and able” where the claim is for legal damages, in contrast to specific performance, has divided the departments; the Second Department has held, as here, that such proof is not required, while the Third and Fourth Departments have held that it is. The Court of Appeals reconciles the conflict by holding that the rule followed by the Third and Fourth Departments is the correct one. Although the plaintiffs in this instance submitted evidence of their financial condition, it was insufficient to eliminate as an issue of fact whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close. Further, a transfer between affiliated companies, as here, does not, in and of itself, constitute a repudiation, thus leaving as a question of fact whether the defendant’s termination of the contracts of sale constituted an anticipatory breach or repudiation. Pesa v. Yoma Development Group, Inc. Decided 2/9/12.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Some Interesting Recent Decisions

Supreme Court Rules Attaching GPS Device to Car Is a Search; Case Is “Big Loss” for U.S. (ABA Journal, 23 Jan 2012) - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for a drug defendant who argued that police should have obtained a warrant before attaching a GPS device to his car to monitor his movements. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for a court that was unanimous in its finding that the police conduct was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUSblog initially called the decision “a big loss for the federal government.” The case, United States v. Jones, is an appeal by Antoine Jones, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine after police installed a GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee. Scalia’s opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case,” Scalia said. “The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” Scalia said Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to the common law tort of trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century. The justices disagreed over analysis and whose interpretation offered a broader or more flexible interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion embracing both Scalia’s analysis and a privacy-expectation test espoused by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and three justices in the court’s liberal wing. Sotomayor wrote that a search occurs “at a minimum” when the government physically intrudes on a constitutionally protected area. Even in the absence of a trespass, she said, the Fourth Amendment is implicated when there is a violation of a suspect’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the decision in a press release. It includes this quote from ACLU legal director Steven Shapiro: “Today’s decision is an important victory for privacy. While this case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on the defendant’s car, the implications are much broader. A majority of the court acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives. Today’s decision suggests that the court is prepared to address that problem. Congress needs to address the problem as well.” Alito endorsed the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test in an opinion concurring in the judgment. He took issue with Scalia’s analysis, accusing him of relying on the tort law of trespass as it existed in the 18th century. Alito’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan. “If longterm monitoring can be accomplished without committing a technical trespass—suppose, for example, that the federal government required or persuaded auto manufacturers to include a GPS tracking device in every car—the court’s theory would provide no protection,” Alito wrote. Scalia responded to Alito and criticized his reliance on Katz v. United States, which found a Fourth Amendment violation when police attached a listening device to the outside of a phone booth. “The concurrence begins by accusing us of applying “18th-century tort law,” “ Scalia wrote. “That is a distortion. What we apply is an 18th-century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted. The concurrence does not share that belief. It would apply exclusively Katz’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, even when that eliminates rights that previously existed.” [Thorough analysis by Prof Dan Solove here.]

Federal Judges Wary of Facebook, Twitter, Google+ Impact on Juries (Network World, 25 Jan 2012) - The impact of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and others on federal juries is a concern that judges are frequently taking steps to curb. According to a study 94% of the 508 federal judges who responded said they have specifically barred jurors from any case-connected use of social media. The Federal Judicial Center was asked by a committee of the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States to survey all 952 federal judges, of whom 53% responded on the issue. “The most common strategy is incorporating social media use into jury instructions - either the model jury instruction provided by (the Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management) or judges” own personal jury instructions,” the report said. “Also common are the practice of reminding jurors on a regular basis not to use social media to communicate during trial or deliberations, explaining the reasons behind the ban on social media, and confiscating electronic devices in the courtroom.” Some of the findings from the study included

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Glad I Didn't Turn Off the Game

13-2 run in the final two minutes..... I still think Austin Rivers will stay more than one year.