23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

gnomesayin said:
In your opinionating, you're misrepresenting key facts yet again. The only ruling by Bell that has been overturned is the preliminary injunction. You keep wrongly implying it was multiple rulings. Additionally, the ruling was not 7-0 because the entire appeals court declined to review the matter further. It was 3-0. This is simple correction, but why do you keep misstating basic facts?

If NASCAR has confidence that Bell's wider rulings on the merits of the case will be overturned on appeal, maybe they're only posturing in their recent public statements that they are urgently working to settle the case. We'll see.
Click to expand...
The ruling was called an abuse of discretion. Some of us think nothing has changed in that area. I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but it seems way over the line to me and a set up for a case that Ray Charles could see was going to go to trial. Not allowing Nascar's counterclaim to be heard appears to be handcuffing the defense. ;)

The judges ruled that the initial granting of the preliminary injunction by the lower district court was an abuse of discretion.
 
StandOnIt said:
The ruling was called an abuse of discretion.
Click to expand...

This is true, and more factual than anything in the post I responded to. The Appeals Court decisively found that Bell overstepped his bounds in granting the injunction, finding that no adequate case law precedent was cited.

That single ruling was important at that stage of the case, but it provides no basis for the ridiculous smears of Bell's competence or propriety that are being routinely posted here. It also does not speak to the merits of the case itself.

Notice that not a single poster sympathetic to the team owners reacted to the Appeals Court's decision by calling them France family lovers who are in NASCAR's back pocket. It remains disappointing that so many only respect the legal process when it agrees with their priors.
 
gnomesayin said:
In your opinionating, you're misrepresenting key facts yet again. The only ruling by Bell that has been overturned is the preliminary injunction. You keep wrongly implying it was multiple rulings. Additionally, the ruling was not 7-0 because the entire appeals court declined to review the matter further. It was 3-0. This is simple correction, but why do you keep misstating basic facts?

If NASCAR has confidence that Bell's wider rulings on the merits of the case will be overturned on appeal, maybe they're only posturing in their recent public statements that they are urgently working to settle the case. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I unintentionally misstated how their SECOND ruling came down. But make no mistake; when the full court declines to review it is in essence a separate decision, stating the 3 judge panel is correct.
 
Conover said:
Indeed, I unintentionally misstated how their SECOND ruling came down. But make no mistake; when the full court declines to review it is in essence a separate decision, stating the 3 judge panel is correct.
Click to expand...

In essence it can be said to be a de facto determination that the larger full court finds it unlikely that they would reverse the smaller panel's ruling. In other words, that it is unlikely they would decide 4-3 in the opposite direction. It does not imply unanimous agreement.
 
Yikes, those careless boys over at NASCAR have estopped themselves, which led directly to the judge ruling in favor of 23XI & FRM that the relevant market is "premier stock car racing."

Matt Weaver's article at Motorsport.com on Judge Bell's decisions issued Tuesday is the best review I've seen on these decisions. Hey, SOI... estoppel is sorta like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Expensive cake in this case. I would agree with those saying Judge Bell's estoppel ruling ramps up the pressure on NASCAR to settle the case before trial.

 
gnomesayin said:
That single ruling was important at that stage of the case, but it provides no basis for the ridiculous smears of Bell's competence or propriety that are being routinely posted here. It also does not speak to the merits of the case itself.
Click to expand...
Oh it does for me. When a higher court uses the words ?having your cake and eating it too", it shows how out of line that ruling was and is. I'm seeing that same type of thing with Bell's latest ruling. So you can go ahead and have your own opinion that is why we are here, making a mistake with the number of 7 compared to three (because it didn't take 7 to rule it was so blatant).
 
LewTheShoe said:
Yikes, those careless boys over at NASCAR have estopped themselves, which led directly to the judge ruling in favor of 23XI & FRM that the relevant market is "premier stock car racing."

Matt Weaver's article at Motorsport.com on Judge Bell's decisions issued Tuesday is the best review I've seen on these decisions. Hey, SOI... estoppel is sorta like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Expensive cake in this case. I would agree with those saying Judge Bell's estoppel ruling ramps up the pressure on NASCAR to settle the case before trial.

Click to expand...
I didn't read it but I would laugh if they lose the charters. Let the teams shoot themselves in the foot.
 
The teams not involved in the suit will all love 23XI if that happens and they lose their charters. People like Penske, Hendrick, Gibbs, Childress, and Haas who didn't pay for theirs originally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom