Court quashes Raiders' lawsuit against NFL

Court Alerts

[##_1L|1129913968.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Raiders owner Al Davis on Monday lost his final effort to collect financial damages stemming from his return to Oakland 12 years ago, a move marked by dozens of television blackouts, thousands of empty seats and millions of dollars in lost revenue. A unanimous California Supreme Court refused to revive the Raiders' lawsuit against the NFL, in which Davis alleged the league forced his move back to Oakland by refusing to cooperate in his attempt to get a new stadium built at Hollywood Park outside Los Angeles.

A Los Angeles jury in 2001 had rejected Davis' claims, but the trial judge, Robert C. Hubbell, threw out the verdict and ordered a new trial after several jurors accused two members of the panel of misconduct. An appellate court in 2005 restored the jury verdict, saying conflicting accounts of what happened in the jury room did not merit a new trial. Restricting its review to a narrow legal issue - whether the appellate court was correct in reviewing the competing juror accounts in the absence of a rationale being provided by Hubbell for his own ruling - the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision.

"We are pleased this lengthy litigation is finally over," said NFL executive vice president Joe Browne.

Jeff Birren, the Raiders' general counsel, said, "The Supreme Court ruled that because the judge failed to insert a couple of extra words of explanation, the Raiders should be denied a new trial. The Supreme Court's ruling is incomprehensible."

Davis had claimed more than $1 billion worth of damages from the NFL, but jurors didn't believe his account that the league forced his decision to move back to Oakland by imposing onerous terms before it would help build a new Hollywood Park stadium. The jury sided with the NFL, which argued Davis took the deal in Oakland because he thought it would turn out best for the team.

After the verdict was reached, Davis personally interviewed jurors and found some who were willing to sign statements saying a member of the panel was prejudiced against the Raiders. That juror, Joseph Abiog, maintained he had no bias, saying he only had joked that "I hate the Raiders" because he once lost a bet on the team in Las Vegas.

The Oakland contract has been disastrous both for the Raiders and taxpayers in the city and in Alameda County, as Raiders fans refused to buy all the pricey personal seat licenses and club seats that the deal's proponents had projected. The Raiders have fallen to among the lowest revenue-producing teams in the league, while the city and county have paid $236 million to cover the deal costs to date, a number that will increase until bonds used to rebuild McAfee Coliseum are retired in 2025.

Related listings

  • Doctor Pleads Guilty to Child Porn

    Doctor Pleads Guilty to Child Porn

    Court Alerts 07/03/2007

    [##_1L|1042800874.jpg|width="120" height="101" alt=""|_##]A family physician in the rural northeast corner of California pleaded guilty Monday to one count of felony child pornography for secretly videotaping teenage girls during pelvic and breast ex...

  • Georgia requests revision of river rights lawsuit

    Georgia requests revision of river rights lawsuit

    Court Alerts 07/02/2007

    [##_1L|1026136475.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]The state of Georgia wants Columbus Water Works to revise some language in a lawsuit the public utility plans to file in an attempt to safeguard Columbus' right to the Chattahoochee River's wat...

  • Top court spares life of mentally ill killer

    Top court spares life of mentally ill killer

    Court Alerts 06/29/2007

    [##_1L|1104668785.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Texas should not execute a severely mentally ill man because he could not comprehend why he was going to be put to death. The 5-4 ruling, written by ...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?

IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.

Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.

Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read