Cougtalk

Another one!

TX 3 and out -5 yards on drive. Crosby starts on TX 49

Good luck BH we are up 14-0 after 1.

Sack and end of first Crosby leads 14-0 after one

Crosby Punts 3 and out. TH starts on 23

turnover on downs cougars ball.

They ran on 3rd and 6, guess they were going for it on 4th down no matter what.

Big 3rd and 6

Texas high with a solid drive so far.

3 drives, 3 trips to redzone 2 tds. Keep that up cougars.

Branch just atheletes for the rest TD 14-0

Dunn just athletes it for 25

Crosby ball at own 46

6 plays and out Texas high punting from own 20

Texas high is throwing it a lot tonight so far.

Texas high runs some complex route trees, but the receivers keep dropping them.

7-0 Crosby, Texas high Ball at own 2.

huge late hit call on Texas High. on a negative 8 play, gives cougars 1-10 on 20. 50-50 ball. Pick in endzone by Texas high.

and it's 7-0 before that

Grey ones!

I think as much as Bh would like to get another shot at us we'd like to get another one at the dogs.

agreed.

I don't believe very many judges would provide summary judgement on these cases but again we won't know until there is a filing. (if anyone ends up filing.) Also, which courts they get filed in would also matter. I'm not writing a petition for you but you can go ahead and write that summary judgement for that case you don't have a filing for, I'm waiting.

So you mean CNN and Washington Post lawyers agreed with me and then settled court cases that were substantially smaller than originally claimed scopes of the public cases? And you and I have no clue what those second filings actually argued, because they aren't public? Good investigation there buds. You're pre-adjudicating claims, it is very reasonable that's what a court would end up saying but that would likely be after arguments. It also would depend upon the original claims made, and how they were written. If as you claim you've taken law classes, then you know that nothing is this cut and dry, especially given they can have more than one case going at a time. You've made the claim that the case would have no merit... I disagree I think it would have merit but it would likely end in favor of TASO and their refs. I made the claim that they wouldn't go for vicarious liability which you ignored... congrats. Institutional oversight and other claims aren't about liability for action but are separate cases that can be brought against TASO. Also, TASO being a organizational oversight body likely has other requirements within its contract with UIL. They could argue that lack of oversight would breach that contract. TASO not risking it's relationship with the UIL could be forced to settle which is all these suits want in the first place. All of these things are possible and would have to be adjudicated in court, they will not be willed away by very many judges and even if TASO/Judges end up winning the cases they are going to have a hard time proving damages, which again is something that would be adjudicated and we shouldn't prescribe our view to what a judge might rule, as we don't have a filing to even see what the claims are. Both those claims can easily be described as towards the entire situation and claims not individuals. that what the NAACP will argue in court in libel claims are brought. Also, note no organization has more claims of libel brought against them than the NAACP year over year. It's safe to say they don't fear that case. Not a lawyer but have taken a few classes, and one of the first things you learn is don't pre-adjudicate cases. Have a good one WOS.

He's just talking about the potential state ranked opponent in a row. No offense but Nederland isn't state ranked.