• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on   Omaha Steaks  .

Whats this stuff regarding Trev?

No.

As I pointed out, prohibitions on consensual relationships are part of an institution's Title IX compliance policy. Under certain circumstances, schools can face stirct liability.

Good trial lawyers do not exaggerate stuff and just let facts speak for themselves. Most farm kids like me would never dream that I could make even $100 an hour, so life is treating me pretty good in my mind.
And yet, you cannot provide any examples of these "certain circumstances" and your previous citations to cases where you claimed strict liability was imposed did nothing of the sort.

My question is: Why are you exaggerating things?
 

You can work and train with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes and whoever else...that doesn't make you Joe Montana, Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes...or Maren Chaploupka.

"Strict liability" imposes liability on a 'defendant' because of the act itself, regardless of any mental state, knowledge or intent. This is basic 1L stuff. By definition, liability for Title IX violations at the outset require knowledge of a potential issue and indifference to the knowledge thereafter. These are absolutely mental states, and strict liability is irrelevant to Title IX or § 1983 claims.

There are no factors that implicate strict liability in this case. None. And I'm not attacking you when I say that if you're charging $420 an hour for this type of analysis, well...I feel for your clients.
We do not know if the Gesper/Davis factors will apply in this case, but we do know that strict liability can be applied via the factors detailed in Gesper/Davis....right...we can acknoweldge that the principal of strict liability can apply in these Title IX case...despite your weak attempts at personal attacks.
 
Technically I have been shot, stabbed and beaten....and did not involve the police in any of those incidents.

All the people I know in LE are decent people...does not mean there are not bad cops...just like there are crooked attorneys. Every profession has its s-birds.
Of course there are bad people in every profession. I wonder however if citizens believe we need more LE officers or attorneys? IMO getting shot, stabbed and beaten should have involved the police imo but to each their own. I always explain to perps the government doesn’t pay me enough to take a beating so they might want to reconsider resisting... Anyway good luck
 
We do not know if the Gesper/Davis factors will apply in this case, but we do know that strict liability can be applied via the factors detailed in Gesper/Davis....right...we can acknoweldge that the principal of strict liability can apply in these Title IX case...despite your weak attempts at personal attacks.
You know that SL either applies to the crime or it doesn't. There aren't factors. That's the entire point of SL, it applies once the act is done regardless of anything else.

You're trying to say if they knew/acted in specific ways they get to SL. That's not remotely accurate. If you have to determine a mental state AND a duty to act (which requires knowledge) before it's a crime, you aren't in SL territory.

This is pretty basic stuff, I can't believe we're having to discuss it.
 

We do not know if the Gesper/Davis factors will apply in this case, but we do know that strict liability can be applied via the factors detailed in Gesper/Davis....right...we can acknoweldge that the principal of strict liability can apply in these Title IX case...despite your weak attempts at personal attacks.
No, we can’t because strict liability does not apply and the Gesper/Davis are not factors of strict liability. If they were, then neither knowledge or deliberate indifference are relevant or necessary.

Not weak attempts at personal attacks, you brought your background and billable rate into the discussion.
 
You know that SL either applies to the crime or it doesn't. There aren't factors. That's the entire point of SL, it applies once the act is done regardless of anything else.

You're trying to say if they knew/acted in specific ways they get to SL. That's not remotely accurate. If you have to determine a mental state AND a duty to act (which requires knowledge) before it's a crime, you aren't in SL territory.

This is pretty basic stuff, I can't believe we're having to discuss it.
Strict liability is not limited to criminal cases and to my knowledge we are not talking about violations of any criminal law in this case.
 

If you want a break down of liability under Title X from right before the two main supreme court cases came down.....including a discussion of strict liability being used in Title IX cases.
Do you realize that the Supreme Court rejected strict liability as the standard in Gebser when it affirmed the 5th’s ruling that strict liability was not the standard? That it specifically rejected the agency analysis that had been previously applied using Title VII to Title IX claims?

Gebser unequivocally established that strict liability was not the standard.
 


Let’s try this another way: why don’t you tell us what you think strict liability in civil law means.
 
Last edited:
If there are victims here, it is the team, the staff and the university.
Consensual relationships could only effect the three above as a victim.

No one was acting in a planned and harmful way, and while you could say it may have been with coach over student, ignoring title nine and being consensual with the above effected in a negative manner the most, I see no strict liability being able to be applied at all.
 

Do you realize that the Supreme Court rejected strict liability as the standard in Gebser when it affirmed the 5th’s ruling that strict liability was not the standard? That it specifically rejected the agency analysis that had been previously applied using Title VII to Title IX claims?

Gebser unequivocally established that strict liability was not the standard.
So are we past arguing about whether or not it is ok for professors to have consentual relationships with students and just arguing nuances of potential strict liability issues?

Either way, it is a messy situation that Nebraska finds itself in...unless we are going to argue about that too...in which case nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, it's all good man!
 
Last edited:


GET TICKETS



Back
Top