How to Hold Onto Your Sports Franchise

The Oklahoma City Thunder had a nice run in the recently concluded NBA playoffs, but it was nothing compared to their run from Seattle.  The story of the escape of the former SuperSonics from Seattle is the central case study in a new paper on the retention of major league franchises by Paul Anderson and William S. Miller.  

Anderson and Miller point to the sports facililty lease agreement as the key legal document by which communities attempt to secure long-term commitments from their teams.  However, as the City of Seattle discovered, there are significant legal and practical impediments to enforcing these commitments.  It may be especially difficult to obtain the remedy of specific performance, i.e., a court order requiring a recalcitrant team to continue playing in a city it wishes to desert.

Anderson and Miller helpfully survey a range of non-relocation agreements that have been negotiated between different cities and sports franchises.  They identify the agreement between Bexar County, Texas, and the San Antonio Spurs as a model of a strong agreement that seems much better designed than the Seattle contract to keep a franchise in its city over the long run.  Among other things, the contract includes a liquidated damages clause that starts at $250,000,000 and declines to $106,000,000 over the term of the lease.

Continue ReadingHow to Hold Onto Your Sports Franchise

The Media and Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Last month I was contacted by the Italian newspaper Il Foglio and interviewed regarding criminal proceedings against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.  A French banker and head of the International Monetary Fund, Strauss-Kahn has been charged with sexually assaulting a maid for the $3000-a- night hotel suite in which he was staying in New York City.  To my surprise, the reporter was not interested in the legal proceedings themselves but rather in the way the case was being presented in the American mass media.

The case is still another example of the way the prosecution of a rich and/or famous person can be and frequently is presented to the public as a type of contemporary morality play, that is, as a dramatic allegory about temptation, sin, and – in the end – either damnation of salvation.  Comparable media packaging of cases involving O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Eliot Spitzer spring to mind.

The added twist in the Strauss-Kahn drama is that the featured player in the morality play is a wealthy and worldly European who found out the hard way about down-to-earth American norms and values.  The best comparison might be to the mass media’s packaging of the attempt to extradite the Polish filmmaker Roman Polansky, who allegedly raped a teenager in California.  Lionized by the French artistic community, Polansky squirreled himself away in Switzerland and in the end avoided the grasp of the American authorities.  Strauss-Kahn, meanwhile is under house arrest in Manhattan and waiting trial.  Might Attica be his hellish fate?

The Il Foglio article appears on the front page of the “Martedo, 24 Maggio 2011” edition, but since the article is in Italian, most of us will require the good services of colleague Irene Calboli in order to read it . . . .

Continue ReadingThe Media and Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Unoriginal Thoughts on Appellate Procedure

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald and State ex rel. Huebsch v. Circuit Court for Dane County.  The decision has rightly generated a good bit of commentary about open government, separation of powers, etc.  My goal here is to clarify a very limited but important point of Wisconsin appellate procedure.

The issues in the decision came to the court in two ways: an appeal from a temporary order that had been certified by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and a petition for a supervisory writ filed by Secretary Huebsch.  The two cases were combined for briefing and oral argument.  The majority’s order denied the certification, granted the petition for a supervisory writ, and then decided the issues contained in the petition for the writ.

In the court’s order, the majority refers to the writ request as a “petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction” (¶ 2) and a “petition for original action” (¶7).  In his concurrence, Justice Prosser refers to the writ request as an “original action” which “satisfies several of the court’s criteria for an original action publici juris” (¶19).

Chief Justice Abrahamson, in her writing, will have none of this (¶¶97-101).  She notes that the majority order “mistakenly asserts” that a “’petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction” was filed by Huebsch “pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.70 and 809.71,” when in fact the Huebsch petition only references 809.71. 

Continue ReadingUnoriginal Thoughts on Appellate Procedure