It is currently Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:06 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Krutwig ankle
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:36 pm
Posts: 245
Any news?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Krutwig ankle
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:02 pm
Posts: 906
He tweeted something to Barstool Sports yesterday, which looked to be fun -- telling them he's got two extra tickets to the game on Saturday …. So i'm going to say he's fine and is gonna be ready to go


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Krutwig ankle
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:15 am
Posts: 3076
Toledo, your standard of proof is way below a preponderance of evidence, and might even fail a mere scintilla test.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Krutwig ankle
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:02 pm
Posts: 906
Your appeal of my Krutwig ruling is reviewed de novo. It is well established that playful social media posts directed toward verified local celebrities by college athletes is conclusive indicia of an athlete's good health and availability for upcoming games. See Richardson v. Everyone Who Hit Him in The Face During A Game, 18 Fnl. 4, at 32-6 (2018); also see Loyola v. Valley 15 M.V.C 3 (2018) (A player for the greatest college basketball team in Chicago was violently hit in the face by an opposing team's player in a mid-week conference game, tweeted and retweeted Kansas City Chiefs crap the following Thursday, and Friday, and was in uniform and registered minutes the following game on Saturday).

We review Toledo Rambler's ruling that Krutwig will be all right for Saturday under the Abuse of Discretion standard. A poster abuses his discretion with a post that "no reasonable person would take the view adopted by [the poster]" O’Connell v. City of Chicago, 285 Ill. App. 3d 459, 463, 647 N.E.2d 105 (1996); a post "made without the employment of conscientious judgement" or one which "exceeded the bounds of reason" Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill. App. 3d 611, 615, 635 N.E.2d 468 (1994); a post with "no reasonable basis in the evidence" Ford v. Baker, 61 Ill. App. 3d 45, 46, 377 N.E.2d 853 (1978); or a post which is "against the manifest weight of the evidence" (Continental Cablevision of Cook County, Inc. v. Miller, 238 Ill. App. 3d 774, 606 N.E.2d 587 (1992)) whose "opposite result is clearly evident from a review of the evidence" In re J.P., 261 Ill. App. 3d 165, 174, 633 N.E.2d 27 (1994).

We see no reason to believe King Krut will not be jacked up and ready to dominate on Saturday. Swella's Appeal is therefore DENIED.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Krutwig ankle
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:15 am
Posts: 3076
Thanks Toledo for reminding me how much I don't miss the law!

Think I'll celebrate by having me a couple bottles of Hazeas Corpus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!