*Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions wi

Law

Criminal Law

Kaplan University Davenport

Question Description

*Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions will result in point deductions on your grade.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 2016)) Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?) Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing Rule: This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case. Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case *Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions will result in point deductions on your grade. Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 2016)) Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?) Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing Rule: This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case. Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case *Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions will result in point deductions on your grade. Law v. NCAA United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit January 23, 1998, Filed No. 96-3034 Reporter 134 F.3d 1010 *; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 940 **; 1998-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72,047; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 609 NORMAN LAW, ANDREW GREER, PETER HERRMANN, MICHAEL JARVIS, JR., and CHARLES M. RIEB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, and WILLIAM HALL, Amicus Curiae. Subsequent History: [**1] Certiorari Denied October 5, 1998, Reported at: 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4921. Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. (D.C. No. 94-2053-KHV). KATHRYN H. VRATIL. Disposition: AFFIRMED. Counsel: William C. Barnard (Gayle A. Reindl, Donald C. Biggs and Mary T. Doherty of Sommer & Barnard, Indianapolis, Indiana; John J. Kitchin and Linda J. Salfrank of Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Kitchin & McLarney, Kansas City, Missouri, with him on the briefs) for Defendant-Appellant. W. Dennis Cross (Lori R. Schultz of Morrison & Hecker, Kansas City, Missouri; Robert G. Wilson of Cotkin & Collins, Los Angeles, California; and Gerald I. Roth, Allentown, Pennsylvania, with him on the briefs) for PlaintiffsAppellees. Leonard B. Simon, Jan M. Adler, Dennis Stewart and Bonny E. Sweeney of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, California; R. Lawrence Ward, Phillip W. Bledsoe of Shugart, Thomson, & Kilroy, Kansas City, Missouri; and Steven Beldsoe, Overland Park, Kansas of Shugart, Thomson, & Kilroy, on the brief for the Amicus Curiae. Law v. NCAA Judges: Before EBEL, LOGAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. Opinion by: EBEL Opinion [*1012] EBEL, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") promulgated a rule limiting annual compensation of [**2] certain Division I entry-level coaches to $ 16,000. Basketball coaches affected by the rule filed a class action challenging the restriction under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The district court granted summary judgment on the issue of liability to the coaches and issued a permanent injunction restraining the NCAA from promulgating this or any other rules embodying similar compensation restrictions. The NCAA now appeals, and we affirm. I. Background The NCAA is a voluntary unincorporated association of approximately 1,100 educational institutions. 1 The association coordinates the intercollegiate athletic programs of its members by adopting and promulgating playing rules, standards of amateurism, standards for academic eligibility, regulations concerning recruitment of student athletes, rules governing the size of athletic squads and coaching staffs, and the like. The NCAA aims to "promote opportunity for equity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics." [**3] The NCAA classifies sports programs into separate divisions to reflect differences in program size and scope. NCAA Division I basketball programs are generally of a higher stature and have more visibility than Division II and III basketball programs. Over 300 schools play in Division I, and each Division I member hires and employs its own basketball coaches. During the 1980s, the NCAA became concerned over the steadily rising costs of maintaining competitive athletic programs, especially in light of the requirements imposed by Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act to increase support for women's athletic programs. The NCAA observed that some college presidents had to close academic departments, fire tenured faculty, and reduce the number of sports offered to students due to economic constraints. At the same time, many institutions felt pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" by increasing spending on recruiting talented players and coaches and on other aspects of their sports programs in order to remain competitive with rival schools. In addition, a report commissioned by the NCAA known as the "Raiborn Report" found that in 1985 42% of NCAA Division I schools reported deficits [**4] in their overall athletic program budgets, with the deficit averaging $ 824,000 per school. The Raiborn Report noted that athletic expenses at all [*1013] Division I institutions rose more than 100% over the eight-year period from 1978 to 1985. Finally, the Report stated that 51% of Division I schools responding to NCAA inquiries on the subject suffered a net loss in their basketball programs alone that averaged $ 145,000 per school. 1 Because this appeal stems from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, we review the facts taken in the light most favorable to the NCAA, the non-moving party. See Kaul v. Stephan, 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Law v. NCAA Part of the problem identified by the NCAA involved the costs associated with part-time assistant coaches. The NCAA allowed Division I basketball teams to employ three full-time coaches, including one head coach and two assistant coaches, and two part-time coaches. The part-time positions could be filled by part-time assistants, graduate assistants, or volunteer coaches. The NCAA imposed salary restrictions on all of the part-time positions. A volunteer coach could not receive any compensation from a member institution's athletic department. A graduate assistant coach was required to be enrolled in a graduate studies program of a member institution and could only receive compensation equal to the value of the cost of the educational experience (grant-in-aid) [**5] depending on the coach's residential status (i.e. a non-resident graduate assistant coach could receive greater compensation to reflect the higher cost of out-of-state tuition than could an in-state student). The NCAA limited compensation to parttime assistants to the value of full grant-in-aid compensation based on the value of out-of-state graduate studies. Despite the salary caps, many of these part-time coaches earned $ 60,000 or $ 70,000 per year. Athletic departments circumvented the compensation limits by employing these part-time coaches in lucrative summer jobs at profitable sports camps run by the school or by hiring them for part-time jobs in the physical education department in addition to the coaching position. Further, many of these positions were filled with seasoned and experienced coaches, not the type of student assistant envisioned by the rule. In January of 1989, the NCAA established a Cost Reduction Committee (the "Committee") to consider means and strategies for reducing the costs of intercollegiate athletics "without disturbing the competitive balance" among NCAA member institutions. The Committee included financial aid personnel, inter-collegiate athletic [**6] administrators, college presidents, university faculty members, and a university chancellor. In his initial letter to Committee members, the Chairman of the Committee thanked participants for joining "this gigantic attempt to save intercollegiate athletics from itself." It was felt that only a collaborative effort could reduce costs effectively while maintaining a level playing field because individual schools could not afford to make unilateral spending cuts in sports programs for fear that doing so would unduly hamstring that school's ability to compete against other institutions that spent more money on athletics. In January of 1990, the Chairman told NCAA members that the goal of the Committee was to "cut costs and save money." It became the consensus of the Committee that reducing the total number of coaching positions would reduce the cost of intercollegiate athletic programs. The Committee proposed an array of recommendations to amend the NCAA's bylaws, including proposed Bylaw 11.6.4 that would limit Division I basketball coaching staffs to four members--one head coach, two assistant coaches, and one entry-level coach called a "restricted-earnings coach". 2 The restricted-earnings [**7] coach category was created to replace the positions of part-time assistant, graduate assistant, and volunteer coach. 3 The Committee believed that doing so would resolve the inequity that existed between those schools with graduate programs that could hire graduate assistant coaches and those who could not while reducing the overall amount spent on coaching salaries. [*1014] A second proposed rule, Bylaw 11.02.3, restricted compensation of restricted-earnings coaches in all Division [**8] I sports other than football to a total of $ 12,000 for the academic year and $ 4,000 for the summer months (the "REC Rule" for restricted-earnings coaches). 4 The Committee determined that the $ 16,000 per year 2 Bylaw 11.6.4 provided in pertinent part: Number Limits. There shall be a limit on the number of coaches that may be employed by an institution in each sport (other than football) as follows: Sport: Basketball, Men; Head or Assistant Coach: 3; Restricted-Earnings Coach: 1. 3 The proposed rule included a "grandfather clause" exempting schools from the staffing limitations where academic tenure, enforceable written contracts, or formal security-of-employment commitments would make it impossible to comply with such limits. 4 Bylaw 11.02.3 provided: Restricted-Earnings Coach. A restricted-earnings coach is any coach who is designated by the institution's athletics department to perform coaching duties and who serves in that capacity on a volunteer or paid basis with the following limitations on earnings derived from the member institution: Law v. NCAA total figure approximated the cost of out-of-state tuition for graduate schools at public institutions and the average graduate school tuition at private institutions, and was thus roughly equivalent to the salaries previously paid to parttime graduate assistant coaches. The REC Rule did allow restricted-earnings coaches to receive additional compensation for performing duties for another department of the institution provided that (1) such compensation is commensurate with that received by others performing the same or similar assignments, (2) the ratio of compensation received for coaching duties and any other duties is directly proportional to the amount of time devoted to the two areas of assignment, and (3) the individual is qualified for and actually performs the duties outside the athletic department for which the individual is compensated. The REC Rule did not prevent member institutions from using savings gained by reducing the number and salary of basketball coaches [**9] to increase expenditures on other aspects of their athletic programs. [**10] Supporting adoption of the REC Rule, the Committee stated: The largest expense item in the athletics budget is personnel. Currently, only football and basketball have limits on the number of coaches who may be employed, and the existing categorical designations of part-time graduate student and volunteer coach have not been effective in reducing the number of full-time paid employees associated with the sport. In addition, the committee recognizes the recent proliferation of part-time personnel associated with many Division I sports. Proposed limitations reflect an effort to (1) reduce the number of coaches associated with each sport by at least one full-time-equivalent position; (2) establish an "unrestricted" head or assistant coach category that will accommodate any type of volunteer, paid, full-time or part-time coach; and (3) establish a "restricted earnings" category that will encourage the development of new coaches while more effectively limiting compensation to such coaches. "Report of the NCAA Special Committee on Cost Reduction," Part Two, P 1. (a) During the academic year, a restricted-earnings coach may receive compensation or remuneration from the institution's athletics department that is not in excess of either $ 12,000 or the actual cost of educational expenses incurred as a graduate student. (b) During the summer, a restricted-earnings coach may receive compensation or remuneration (total remuneration shall not exceed $ 4,000) from: (1) The institution's athletics department or any organization funded in whole or in part by the athletics department or that is involved primarily in the promotion of the institution's athletics program (e.g., booster club, athletics foundation association); (2) The institution's camp or clinic, (3) Camps or clinics owned or operated by institutional employees, or (4) Another member institution's summer camp. (c) During the summer or the academic year, the restricted-earnings coach may receive compensation for performing duties for another department or office of the institution, provided: (1) The compensation received for those duties outside the athletic department is commensurate with that received by others performing those same or similar assignments, (2) The ratio of compensation received for coaching duties and any other duties is directly proportionate to the amount of time devoted to the two areas of assignment, and (3) The individual is qualified for and is performing the duties outside the athletic department for which the individual is compensated. (d) Compensation for employment from a source outside the institution during the academic year or from sources other than those specified under 11.02.3-(b) and 11.02.3-(c) above during the summer shall be excluded from the individual's limit on remuneration. Law v. NCAA [*1015] The NCAA adopted the proposed rules, including the REC Rule, by majority vote in January of 1991, and the rules became [**11] effective on August 1, 1992. 5 The rules bind all Division I members of the NCAA that employ basketball coaches. The schools normally compete with each other in the labor market for coaching services. In this case, plaintiffs-appellees were restricted-earnings men's basketball coaches at NCAA Division I institutions in the academic year 1992-93. They challenged the REC Rule's limitation on compensation under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1990), as an unlawful "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of [**12] trade." They did not challenge other rules promulgated by the NCAA, including the restriction on the number of coaches. The district court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (1993) 6 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26 (1982). 7 [**13] The district court addressed the issue of liability before addressing issues of class certification and damages. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found the NCAA liable for violating section 1. Following the ruling, an administrative committee of the NCAA rescinded the compensation limits. However, the rescission was subject to ratification by NCAA members at their January 1996 meeting, and the appellate record does not reflect that such ratification ever occurred. Prior to the meeting, a new rule was proposed that would have eliminated the restricted-earnings coach position and replaced it with a position having similar compensation restrictions. On January 5, 1996, the district court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26, permanently enjoined the NCAA from enforcing or attempting to enforce any restricted-earnings coach salary limitations against the named plaintiffs, and it further enjoined the NCAA from "reenacting the compensation limitations embodied in [the REC Rule]." The NCAA appeals the permanent injunction. 5 Other cost-saving measures were adopted that, inter alia, limited: * the number of coaches who could recruit off campus. * off-campus contacts with prospective student-athletes. * visits by prospective student-athletes. * printed recruiting materials. * the number of practices before the first scheduled game. * the number of games and duration of seasons. * team travel and training table meals. * financial aid grants to student-athletes. 6 28 U.S.C. § 1337 provides in relevant part: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies. 7 15 U.S.C. § 15 provides in relevant part: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section [regarding foreign states], any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. 15 U.S.C. § 26 provides in relevant part: Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws. ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags