FormerXyloWhiz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 21 minutes ago, Slingerland said: Even if CAE prevails, there are other individuals who would probably be willing to go after them for misdoings of at least one person we can all think of for similar behavior (edit: depending on what PA's statute of limitations on civil cases is), so they'd be at this for years to come. Any concept that could be seen as having any connection to any iteration of The Cadets is likely kaput. Keep in mind that if CAE wins this (a win meaning a judgment that they are not liable), then other actions against them for incidents that occurred under the previous organizations will have exceeding difficulty being successful. A full win in this case would help protect them going forward from other attempts for what happened under the old guard. This is why it actually matters for any potential, though improbable, future for the corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerXyloWhiz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 12 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: PA’s statute of limitations are pretty strong and have upheld precedent with the state Supreme Court. A problem for CAE (or any potential successor) is that if this argument is successful and throws out the case, it doesn't provide any safeguard about whether or not a new org claiming to uphold that legacy is liable for the old org. That particular question of law would not have been adjudicated on and would remain an open question and a potential source of risk going forward. Edited March 19 by FormerXyloWhiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerXyloWhiz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 15 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Well, actually, Blue Stars came back immediately, first as a cadet corps, then as an A60 corps. They were not inactive for decades, or even for years. Today i learned! Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 18 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Well, actually, Blue Stars came back immediately, first as a cadet corps, then as an A60 corps. They were not inactive for decades, or even for years. Their alumni and Boston’s never gave up. Admirable. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 6 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said: Keep in mind that if CAE wins this (a win meaning a judgment that they are not liable), then other actions against them for incidents that occurred under the previous organizations will have exceeding difficulty being successful. A full win in this case would help protect them going forward from other attempts for what happened under the old guard. This is why it actually matters for any potential, though improbable, future for the corps. Agreed, though the specific circumstances in this complaint (40 years ago, an employee whose actions took place at a non-corps event, etc) make it structurally pretty weak to begin with. I don't necessarily disagree that prevailing in this case might offer them a shield to keep others from pursuing their own actions, but Hopkins' abuses were so many in number and of more recent vintage that it's not quite an apples to apples situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 6 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said: A problem for CAE (or any potential successor) is that if this argument is successful and throws out the case, it doesn't provide any safeguard about whether or not a new org claiming to uphold that legacy is liable for the old org. That particular question of law would not have been adjudicated on and would remain an open question and a potential source of risk going forward. Well at least in NJ, they’ve ruled that they are liable for the old organization. I was more referencing the ability for people to sue in PA. It wouldn’t fly like this did in NJ because of their one time retroactive lifting of statutes. PA has upheld the statute of limitations in cases and anyone would have a hard time trying to get around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 8 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said: A problem for CAE (or any potential successor) is that if this argument is successful and throws out the case, it doesn't provide any safeguard about whether or not a new org claiming to uphold that legacy is liable for the old org. My understanding is that judge allowed it to go forward but without specifically saying that CAE is necessarily liable for anything that happened at the predecessor organizations that had The Cadets as a product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Tuma Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 19 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: Their alumni and Boston’s never gave up. Admirable. People either never knew or chose to forget Blue Stars were a DIII/A60 powerhouse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerXyloWhiz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 21 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: Well at least in NJ, they’ve ruled that they are liable for the old organization. I was more referencing the ability for people to sue in PA. It wouldn’t fly like this did in NJ because of their one time retroactive lifting of statutes. PA has upheld the statute of limitations in cases and anyone would have a hard time trying to get around that. Unless there is a literal order by the Court (a Judge) finding CAE liable for Plaintiff's damages, they are not yet ruled to be liable for the old organization necessarily. Just because they have refused to allow them to be dismissed at this junction does not equal that. Orders would be available online via the case search. I absolutely understand what you're referencing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerXyloWhiz Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 30 minutes ago, Slingerland said: Agreed, though the specific circumstances in this complaint (40 years ago, an employee whose actions took place at a non-corps event, etc) make it structurally pretty weak to begin with. I don't necessarily disagree that prevailing in this case might offer them a shield to keep others from pursuing their own actions, but Hopkins' abuses were so many in number and of more recent vintage that it's not quite an apples to apples situation. True - but all Hop abuses are technically pre-CAE. So it is objectively better for any potential future for the corps, however you look at it, that CAE prevails. That is not to say it's objectively better from a morality standpoint that they prevail though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.