I'd love to see a massive plan costing hundreds of millions of dollars for school refurbishments, teacher salaries, social services, etc.
They won't get that. Whatever they do end up with won't just be a large check to the city either. The City, County, CVC, and the State of Missouri are all entitled to some of that money.KansasCitian wrote: I can't imagine St. Louis winning $2 billion at trial, but, if they did, what would they use that money on?
Policing, schools...?
So it could be policing, schools, upgrades to the convention center, something the state wants to spend money on. Probably a little early to be diving down that rabbit hole though.
- 2,419
Any money the state gets had better go right back to St. Louis.
I would imagine (but maybe it would make too much sense for it to actually happen) the money would first go to paying off the dome then to the convention center renovations. If there is some left after that hopefully they spend it wisely.sc4mayor wrote:They won't get that. Whatever they do end up with won't just be a large check to the city either. The City, County, CVC, and the State of Missouri are all entitled to some of that money.KansasCitian wrote: I can't imagine St. Louis winning $2 billion at trial, but, if they did, what would they use that money on?
Policing, schools...?
So it could be policing, schools, upgrades to the convention center, something the state wants to spend money on. Probably a little early to be diving down that rabbit hole though.
^ Absolutely, and that's pretty much what I think they'll get back if they prevail. Enough for the City, County and State to pay off the Dome and maybe enough to reimburse the $16 million or so the CVC spent planning the new stadium.
Anything more than that seems like a long shot...though I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
Anything more than that seems like a long shot...though I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
- 2,929
It is overwhelmingly likely that STL will win a suit that'll award the city damages somewhere in the eight-figures. That alone is worth the fight. Still, it's fun to think about a ten-figure damage award coming to the City, and County & State. First thing the City should do is pay off its debts, increasing our bond ratings and paying off all our pension obligations. Then, we should invest in both education and justice, along with considerable economic development. Hell, with that much capital the City would have enough money left over to create a private investment fund, like an endowment, that could use the coupons & dividends to finance additional capital expenditures.
- 2,056
We should all say a prayer to the law-gods to have mercy on our city in the form of 10 figures.
Gleefully demolishing more north city neighborhoodsKansasCitian wrote: I can't imagine St. Louis winning $2 billion at trial, but, if they did, what would they use that money on?
Policing, schools...?
Agree with sc4mayor, you will never see that kind of cash and even a reduced or a settlement amount is still years from happening.sc4mayor wrote:They won't get that. Whatever they do end up with won't just be a large check to the city either. The City, County, CVC, and the State of Missouri are all entitled to some of that money.KansasCitian wrote: I can't imagine St. Louis winning $2 billion at trial, but, if they did, what would they use that money on?
Policing, schools...?
So it could be policing, schools, upgrades to the convention center, something the state wants to spend money on. Probably a little early to be diving down that rabbit hole though.
Would love to see St. Louis at a minimum recoup enough to pay off the dome debt which seems completely justifiable as well as realistic settlement going forward in my mind. Icing on cake would be settlement that would go above and beyond dome debt that it helps cover some of the Convention upgrade costs. In other words, the region took on the debt for a business that is exempt from anti-trust. Time for some king of accountability when their is a public outlay.
- 9,566
Let’s ask for $700m. The cost to build the domedredger wrote:Agree with sc4mayor, you will never see that kind of cash and even a reduced or a settlement amount is still years from happening.sc4mayor wrote:They won't get that. Whatever they do end up with won't just be a large check to the city either. The City, County, CVC, and the State of Missouri are all entitled to some of that money.KansasCitian wrote: I can't imagine St. Louis winning $2 billion at trial, but, if they did, what would they use that money on?
Policing, schools...?
So it could be policing, schools, upgrades to the convention center, something the state wants to spend money on. Probably a little early to be diving down that rabbit hole though.
Would love to see St. Louis at a minimum recoup enough to pay off the dome debt which seems completely justifiable as well as realistic settlement going forward in my mind. Icing on cake would be settlement that would go above and beyond dome debt that it helps cover some of the Convention upgrade costs. In other words, the region took on the debt for a business that is exempt from anti-trust. Time for some king of accountability when their is a public outlay.
No matter what the court awards us, it will undoubtedly be greatly reduced on appeal. That's the way it always works.
Really, I think the biggest winners from this will ultimately be other small-to-medium market cities, like Buffalo, Tampa, Cincy, etc., who will no longer get openly screwed by the NFL.
Really, I think the biggest winners from this will ultimately be other small-to-medium market cities, like Buffalo, Tampa, Cincy, etc., who will no longer get openly screwed by the NFL.
- 2,056
Just curious, why do appeals always end in reduced fees/sentences/etc. Is there a precedent for why?
- 474
In civil cases I would guess the reduction in damages is due to the jury being removed from the equation.
- 1,792
Its not really an appeals thing, a "Judgement Not-withstanding Verdict" (JNOV) is common in cases where damages awarded may be impacted by bias or inflamed passions of a jury. With a JNOV a judge can completely reject a juries assignment of liability but it typically results in a reduction of awarded damages to a value more reflective of the actual injury. Usually things like emotional trauma of fans who lost a team get devalued for final assessment of damages.pattimagee wrote: Just curious, why do appeals always end in reduced fees/sentences/etc. Is there a precedent for why?
from Google
JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict.
I think there is a decent chance the city gets enough to pay off the bonds on the dome, back dated to the rams exit date, and expenses incurred to try to keep the team here, plus legal fees. That would feel just but maybe not satisfying. Even that is questionable because the city continues to derive value from the dome so it might have to be prorated for that as well.
Kroenke, Rams, NFL to appeal relocation lawsuit to U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 11197968c6
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 11197968c6
Believe this is a pretty big gamble on their part when you consider that Oakland as it relates to Raiders move pretty much has the same lawsuit I believe. A supreme court ruling if they chose to take up the case impacts on what could be a couple big settlements and as well as make moves much more difficult (or I should say more costly) in the future or gives NFL a free pass on any move at any time in the future. But we are talking sports, not much excitement when you end in a tie.framer wrote: Kroenke, Rams, NFL to appeal relocation lawsuit to U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 11197968c6
- 2,929
BOOM!dredger wrote:Believe this is a pretty big gamble on their part when you consider that Oakland as it relates to Raiders move pretty much has the same lawsuit I believe. A supreme court ruling if they chose to take up the case impacts on what could be a couple big settlements and as well as make moves much more difficult (or I should say more costly) in the future or gives NFL a free pass on any move at any time in the future. But we are talking sports, not much excitement when you end in a tie.framer wrote: Kroenke, Rams, NFL to appeal relocation lawsuit to U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 11197968c6
Note that it's not heading to the Supremes to argue the relocation, but for the arbitration clause. If StanK & the NFL win in the SCOTUS, then the case will be heard in arbitration per the original lease agreement. But, if they are denied venue, or if the SCOTUS validates the ruling of the previous courts and against StanK & the NFL, then the case returns to the City of STL and likely a full jury trial.
This tells me that the NFL has a tremendous amount of reputation they could lose.
It also tells me that these huge damages may be valid in the eyes of the court, that they could actually end up losing billions of dollars to the City/County/State.
This just might happen.
- 2,419
If St. Louis is entitled to this, I hope Oakland and San Diego are as well, though their cases are obviously going to be very different.
I'd love to see the NFL hurt a ton for the stunts they pulled.
I'd love to see the NFL hurt a ton for the stunts they pulled.
I feel obliged to jump in.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would elect to hear this case from among the thousands of petitions for certiorari (review) it receives. It would also be a narrow appeal, since SCOTUS can only review the federal claims in the case; it can't overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri law. (I haven't reviewed the briefs to see how much of it was framed as questions of federal law.)
As for why jury verdicts frequently get reduced after the fact, one big reason is because there's controlling precedent that punitive damages (damages purely to punish the defendant) that are more than 10 times the compensatory damages (i.e. the actual, quantifiable monetary losses of the plaintiff) are unconstitutional, meaning judges have no choice but to reduce it in that situation. This is what has happened in a couple of the Bayer/Monsanto RoundUp cases. More generally, under the principle of remittitur, a judge can reduce a verdict deemed to be grossly excessive as a matter of law.
That said, I think it's fair to expect a little pro-STL bias from the local judiciary, not just juries.
</pedantic lawyer rant>
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would elect to hear this case from among the thousands of petitions for certiorari (review) it receives. It would also be a narrow appeal, since SCOTUS can only review the federal claims in the case; it can't overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri law. (I haven't reviewed the briefs to see how much of it was framed as questions of federal law.)
As for why jury verdicts frequently get reduced after the fact, one big reason is because there's controlling precedent that punitive damages (damages purely to punish the defendant) that are more than 10 times the compensatory damages (i.e. the actual, quantifiable monetary losses of the plaintiff) are unconstitutional, meaning judges have no choice but to reduce it in that situation. This is what has happened in a couple of the Bayer/Monsanto RoundUp cases. More generally, under the principle of remittitur, a judge can reduce a verdict deemed to be grossly excessive as a matter of law.
That said, I think it's fair to expect a little pro-STL bias from the local judiciary, not just juries.
</pedantic lawyer rant>
- 1,864
Yeah, I agree that the Supreme Court will most likely decline to weight in here and the Missouri Supreme Court ruling will stand. There is no question of federal law in play and this is not a case that is of major national interest (for the most part).
Agree, highly unlikely but you wonder if it is unique enough that it might be tempting for SCOTUS to take up.DJJD wrote: I feel obliged to jump in.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would elect to hear this case from among the thousands of petitions for certiorari (review) it receives. It would also be a narrow appeal, since SCOTUS can only review the federal claims in the case; it can't overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri law. (I haven't reviewed the briefs to see how much of it was framed as questions of federal law.)
</pedantic lawyer rant>
Can never say never. My own employer got its case heard by SCOTUS earlier this year and they are not a high profile, big name company nor was it a case that garnered much high profile news. However, it settled a question of punitive damages as a result of a injury that took place within maritime law which in itself has its own unique set of regulations and governing laws.
Jeff Fisher had a radio interview in St. Louis recently and apparently his host threw him some hardball questions about what he knew (regarding relocation) and when he knew it. Ben Fredrickson has a bit of a rundown:
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns ... 177d6.html
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns ... 177d6.html
- 60
Here's the audio.
http://insidestl.com/the-tim-mckernan-s ... er/2016975
I listened to this a couple days ago, and, in my opinion, Fisher wasn't completely honest when answering the questions. It's probably because he is looking to get back into coaching now.
http://insidestl.com/the-tim-mckernan-s ... er/2016975
I listened to this a couple days ago, and, in my opinion, Fisher wasn't completely honest when answering the questions. It's probably because he is looking to get back into coaching now.
- 2,419
He'd be shooting himself in the foot if he threw the league under the bus ahead of this lawsuit.