Comments on: The law in the restraining order ruling http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/ news, analysis, and everything else about the california golden bears Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:14:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Brian http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54797 Brian Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:19:58 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54797 Your yard, unlike the oak grove, is not state (i.e. public) property. Your yard, unlike the oak grove, is not state (i.e. public) property.

]]> By: calfan4life http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54724 calfan4life Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:08:03 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54724 So, smelly hippies could show up on MY property, and crap out of my trees. And the court says I can't do anything about? Well in my county I can get a burn permit! Guess what I'd do than? So, smelly hippies could show up on MY property, and crap out of my trees. And the court says I can’t do anything about? Well in my county I can get a burn permit! Guess what I’d do than?

]]> By: SoCal Oski http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54625 SoCal Oski Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:41:59 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54625 Nice summary, but I wonder about your conclusions re: the four factors. For factor 1 you claim that since it is UC property, they have a good chance of winning. But isn't UC property, by definition, "public" thus invalidating any claim UC has? Also, the concern over the propane & excrement is contradicted by your analysis of point 2, and also by the fact that the fence surrounding the trees renders this a very unlikely health & safety issue. But I may be totally wrong, since I have no real knowledge of the law. Go Bears Nice summary, but I wonder about your conclusions re: the four factors.

For factor 1 you claim that since it is UC property, they have a good chance of winning. But isn’t UC property, by definition, “public” thus invalidating any claim UC has? Also, the concern over the propane & excrement is contradicted by your analysis of point 2, and also by the fact that the fence surrounding the trees renders this a very unlikely health & safety issue.

But I may be totally wrong, since I have no real knowledge of the law.

Go Bears

]]> By: TwistNHook http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54613 TwistNHook Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:41:10 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54613 Damn, see, this is all the stuff I instantly forgot the second I passed the Bar. Oh, to be a law student and care about such things. GO BEARS! Damn, see, this is all the stuff I instantly forgot the second I passed the Bar. Oh, to be a law student and care about such things. GO BEARS!

]]> By: joshiemac http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54599 joshiemac Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:41:52 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54599 Thanks for the in-depth analysis. It's impossible to ascertain facts from fiction in the Chron's reporting on this subject. Thanks for the in-depth analysis. It’s impossible to ascertain facts from fiction in the Chron’s reporting on this subject.

]]> By: Brian http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/the-law-in-the-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54596 Brian Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:31:16 +0000 http://www.calfootballfan.com/2007/09/13/law-students-point-of-view-on-restraining-order-ruling/#comment-54596 Hmmm... seems fairly solid, with the exception of Factor 3. Since Cal is currently enjoined from actually cutting down the trees, I don't know that a court would (or should) assume that if the protesters are asked to leave, Cal would violate the injunction and cut down the trees. Maybe the protesters think it would happen, but that factor is an objective test, not a subjective one - otherwise any stark raving lunatic could avoid injunctions just by pointing to his insane but unreasonable belief that the injunction would screw him over for life. I guess making the assumption that Cal would violate a court order and cut down the trees might not be extreme enough to constitute abuse of discretion on the part of a trial judge, but it still seems pretty far-fetched. Also, as to factor 4, surely there is some additional public interest in NOT having human excrement and propane tanks falling out of trees near a football stadium at a public university. But I guess we'll have to wait for October. Hmmm… seems fairly solid, with the exception of Factor 3. Since Cal is currently enjoined from actually cutting down the trees, I don’t know that a court would (or should) assume that if the protesters are asked to leave, Cal would violate the injunction and cut down the trees. Maybe the protesters think it would happen, but that factor is an objective test, not a subjective one - otherwise any stark raving lunatic could avoid injunctions just by pointing to his insane but unreasonable belief that the injunction would screw him over for life. I guess making the assumption that Cal would violate a court order and cut down the trees might not be extreme enough to constitute abuse of discretion on the part of a trial judge, but it still seems pretty far-fetched.

Also, as to factor 4, surely there is some additional public interest in NOT having human excrement and propane tanks falling out of trees near a football stadium at a public university.

But I guess we’ll have to wait for October.

]]>