SOUTHTEXASLAWREVIEW WRITE-ONPACKET

SUMMER2015

I.INTRODUCTION

Congratulations!Your commendablegrade pointaverage enablesyoutotake partinthe SouthTexasLawReviewwrite-oncompetition.[1]Lawreviewmembershipstrengthensone’s research, writing, andeditingskills and is, formanyemployers, an important hiringcriterion.

Thestrategies andlessonspropoundedbyLegalResearch andWriting Iand IIare integraltosuccessinthiscompetition,socontestantsare encouragedtoreview their coursework andBluebookexercises.Timelinessandorganizationarealsokey componentstosucceedingin thewrite-on competition, as thewritingtopictypicallyconcerns novel issues of complexlaw.

II.ASSIGNMENT

The summer 2015write-oncompetitionisdividedintotwoparts:PartAinvolves completion ofa casenoteand Part Binvolves completion of an editing exercise.

PartA

A case note isa detailedanalysisofa recentcase thateither supportsor criticizesthe court’srationale andholding.Thepositionyoutake isirrelevant,providedthatyour positionis deliveredclearly andiswellsupported.Acasenoteshouldincludeanalysisofrelevantlegal principles,explorationofrelated casesinthe same andotherjurisdictions,anda predictionof appellatereview,shouldthecourt’sholding bechallenged.Theconclusionshouldincludea summary oftheargument,apredictedoutcome,andthe likely practicaleffect of the court’sholding.

PartAisaclosed-sourceassignment.Consequently,youmay only citethecasesand authoritiesincludedinthesourcelistprovided. Notethatcontestantsmay notneedtouseallof the citedsourcestosucceedinthiscompetition.The Editorial Boardhasattemptedtoselectan interestingandcontroversialtopic,and,aswithmany legalissues,thereisno“right”or“wrong” answer—merelywellorpoorly reasonedarguments.Persuasivereasoning,strongauthoritative support, and technical prowess arethekeys to success in this competition.

Thoughthesubstanceofyouranalysisiscritical,theformisequally so.Rememberthat onepurposeofalaw review is to ensurethetechnical perfection ofpublished articles. A persuasiveandarticulatecasenotethatislitteredwithcitationerrors, spelling mistakes,and grammatical problems will not likelypass muster.

A goodresource isScholarlyWritingfor LawStudents: SeminarPapers, LawReview NotesandLawReviewCompetitionPapersbyElizabethFajansMaryR.Falk.[2]Thisbook containsaspecificdiscussionofthecontentandorganizationofacasenoteandisavailableat the referencedeskin theSouth Texas library,and in theSouth Texas bookstore forpurchase.

ThecaseforPartAisWarner v. Gross.[3]Pleasereadthecasecarefullybeforeyou begin writing.

ISSUE: Whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment permits the use of a three-drug protocol in executions, where the first drug does not consistently cause deep, coma-like unconsciousness.

PartB

Theeditingexercisewillshowyourability tofollowtheguidelinessetforthinthe Bluebook,[4] the Greenbook[5] (if applicable),andtheTexasLawReviewManualonUsageandStyle.[6]TheBluebookindexisa greatplacetostartifyouareciting asourcethatyouareunfamiliarwith.Notethatthisexercise mayinvolvemorethan onerulepercitation. The Manual on Usage and Style, or “MoUS,” is the controlling guide for any style matter NOT addressed by the Bluebook. Generallywedonotencouragechangingan author’s styleorword choicemerelybecause you think somethingelsemaysound better. However,donotassumethatany informationcontainedintheexerciseiscorrect.Youwillbe requiredtoverify thesourceandsubstantiveaccuracy ofanyinformationcontainedinthe exercise,aswellascorrectany grammaticalorcitationerrorsinthetextandfootnotes.Pleasedo notaddordeleteany footnotes.Itisrecommendedthatyoucompletetheeditingexercisefirst becauseitwillhelpyouinyourcasenotecitations.Regarding editing,pleasemakesurethatthe “TRACKCHANGES”featureis turned OFF.

III.DEADLINESANDINSTRUCTIONS

The casenoteand editing exercisearedueonFriday, June 5, 2015, at5:00 p.m. Please deliverthemtoBen Santillan.Hisofficeislocatedon the 10th floor.Nolatepapers willbeaccepted,withoutexception.Youmustturninfive(5)hardcopies.Studentsthatare outoftownduring thetimethecasenoteisduemustmailfivecopiesoftheircasenoteand editingexerciseto:

Ben Santillan

South Texas CollegeofLaw

1303 San Jacinto

Houston, Texas 77002.

Inaddition to thefivehard copies,all participantsmust submit one (1)electronic copy to Ben hesemustbeinWorddocumentform.Eachparticipant issolelyresponsibleforensuringthecasenoteandeditingexerciseisreceivedby the5:00p.m. deadline on Friday,June 5,2015.There willbenoexceptionstothisdeadline,soensureyour paperisturned inon time. Decisions will beposted by Monday,June 29, 2015, andmandatoryorientation fornewcandidateswill occuron Saturday, August15, 2015at 10:00 a.m.

The case note mustbe atleasteight(8) pages,butnomore thaneleven(11) pagesin length(excludingtheeditingexercises),twelve-pointTimesNewRomanfont,fully-justified, withone-inchmargins,containing atleastfifty footnotes.Thetextandfootnotesshouldbe formattedaccordingtothe Bluebook, the Greenbook, andtheManualonUsage andStyle.The body textshouldbedouble-spaced,andfootnotetextshouldbesingle-spaced,butdouble-spaced betweeneachfootnote, in ten-point font. Pleaseincludethe followingitems in the casenote:

  • Title– a relevant phrasesummarizing yourthesis and aproper citation ofthe case;
  • TableofContents – referencethepagenumbers on which different sections begin;
  • PageNumbers–centeredatthebottomofeverypage,exceptthefirstpage,which should not benumbered.

Your casenoteshould also includethe following sections:

  • Introduction paragraph includingathesis and roadmap;
  • Backgroundofthelaw,includingadiscussionofthecasesleadinguptotheselected case;
  • Facts andthe court’sreasoningoftheselectedcase;
  • Your analysis ofwhythecourt was right orwrong in thedecision it cameto;
  • A“prediction”ofthepossibledispositionoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates regardingthecase;and
  • A conclusion.

Donotplace your name or any identification number onthecasenote or editingexercise.Youwillbe assignedan identificationnumberwhenyouturninyourfivecopies.Any casenotesubmittedcontaininga nameorany othermarkidentifyingthestudent/author,otherthantheassignedidentification number,willbe disqualifiedfromthe write-on competition.Be sure tocomplete andsign the attached pledgeformand submit it with five copies ofyourcasenote.[7]

Thecasenoteandeditingexercisemustbesolelytheworkofthestudent.Studentsmay

notcollaboratewithanyone,including otherstudents,attorneys,professors,ormembersofSouth TexasLaw Review.

Feelfreetolookatpreviously publishedSouthTexasLawReviewcasenotesforfurther guidance.CopiesoftheSouthTexasLawReviewareavailableintheLawReviewsuite,the SouthTexaslibrary,andonelectroniclegaldatabases.Remember—startearly,workhard,and beprecise. Good luck.

The2015–2016South Texas LawReviewEditorial Board

SUMMER 2015 LAW REVIEW WRITE-ON COMPETITION PART A: SOURCE LIST

PLEASENOTE:ThesourcescitedbelowmayormaynotbecorrectBluebookform and mayormay not berelevant to thecasenotetopic. It isthestudent’sresponsibility to cite these sources in their correct Bluebookform and to make sure that the sources are relevant, updated, andstill goodlaw.

SOURCES

  1. Warner v. Ew Gross, 776 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2015) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1173 (2015).
  2. McGautha v. Cal., 402 U.S. 183 (1971).
  3. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
  4. John D. Bessler, Revisiting Beccaria's Vision; The Enlightenment, America's Death Penalty, and the Abolition Movement, 4 Nw. J. L. and Soc. Pol. 195 (2009).
  5. Blaze v. Reeses, 553 U.S. 35 (2008).
  6. Warner v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 824 (2014).
  7. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 S. Ct. 459 (1947).
  8. Trop v. Dalles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) (En Banc).
  9. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879).
  10. In RE Himmmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890).
  11. Gregg v. Georgia, 422 U.S. 153 (1976).
  12. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
  13. Helling v. MCKinney, 5O9 U.S. 25 (1993).
  14. Farmer Bill v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 834 (1994).
  15. The Mann v. Ryan Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2013).
  16. Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094 (9th Circuit 1997).
  17. 42 U..c.a § 1983
  18. Hill v. MCDONALLD, 547 U.S. 573 (2006).
  19. Nelson v. Julius Campbell, 541 U.S.A. 637 (2004).
  20. Cooley v. Struckland, 589 F.3d 210 (1th Cir. 2009).
  21. U.S. Const. Seciton. VIII.
  22. Gossip v. State, 157 P.3d 143 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
  23. Grant v. State, 58 P.3d 783 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
  24. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
  25. Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2015) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1197 (2015).
  26. Ropper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
  27. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) as modified (Oct. 1, 2008), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 554 U.S. 945 (2008).
  28. Graham v. Flor., 560 U.S. 48 (2010), as modified (July 6, 2010).
  29. Alison A. Nathan & Douglas J. Berman, Baze-D and Confused: What's the Dealio with Lethal Injection?, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 312 (2008).
  30. Seema Shah, How Lethal Injection Reform Constitutes Impermissible Research on Prisoners, 45 Am. Criminal.l. Rev. 1101 (2008).
  31. Richard Kline, Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence-October 2008 Term, 26 Touro L. Rev. 545, 571 (2010).
  32. Beardless v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2005).
  33. Daniela R. OldenKamp, Civil Rights in the Execution Chamber: Why Death Row Inmates' Section 1983 Claims Demand Reassessment of Legitimate Penological Objectives, 42 Val. U. L. Rev. 955 (2009-Summer ed.).
  34. AbdurRahman v. Bredesen, 181 S.W.3d 292 (Ten. 2005).
  35. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (per curiam).
  36. Note, A Shot in the Dark: Why Virginia Should Adopt the Firing Squad As Its Primary Method of Execution, 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 779 (2015).
  37. Eric Burger, The Executioners' Dilemmas, 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 731 (2015).
  38. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2013) cert. did not happen, 134 S. Ct. 1789 (2014). Id.
  39. Hooner v. Norris, 594 F.3d 592 (8th Circ. 2010).
  40. Rhoades v. Reinke, 671 F.3d 856 (9th Circ. 2012).
  41. Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2014) cert. denied sub nom. Chavez v. palmer, 134 S. Ct. 1156 (2014).
  42. Estate of Charels Dickens v. Milwaukee Brewer, 631 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011).
  43. Jackson v. Danberg, 594 F. 3d 210 (3th C. 2010).
  44. Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F. 3d 1336 (10d Cir. 2010).
  45. Raby v. Livingston, 600 F. 3d 552 (6th Cir. 2010).
  46. Harvey Gee, Ninth Amendment Challenges After Blaze v. Rees: Lethal Injection, Civil Rights Lawsuits, and the Death Benefit, 31 B.C. Third World Country L.J. 217 (2011).
  47. Justin F. Marceaü, Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal Injection, the Eighth Amendment, and Plurality Opinions, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 159 (2009).
  48. Eric Burger, Lethal Injection and the Problem of Constitutional Remedies, 27 Harvard L. & Pol'y Rev. 259 (2009).
  49. Ranya Elzein, If You’re Going to Do It, Then Do-It Right: The case for Videotaping Lethal Injections, 74 Ohîo St. L.J. 339 (2013).
  50. Erica Berger, Lethal Injection Secrecy and Eighth Amendment Due Process, 55 Boston C. L. REV. 1367 (2014).
  51. Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (19th Cir. 2012).
  52. Atkins v. Virgin, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
  53. State v. Rivera, No. 04CR065940, 2008 WL 2784679 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. July 10, 2008).
  54. Cook v. Food & Drug Administration, 733 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
  55. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)
  56. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1014(A) (2011).
  57. Allen Huang, Hanging, Cyanide Gas, and the Evolving Standards of Decency: The Ninth Circuit’s Misapplication of the Cruel and Unusual Clause of the Eighth Amendment, 74 OR. L. REV. 995 (1975).
  58. Christopher Q. Cutler, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah’s Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 CLEVELAND. ST. LAW REVIEW. 335 (2003).
  59. Deborah W. Denno, Getting to Death: Are Executions Constitutional?, 82 IOWA L. REV. 319 (1997)
  60. Deborah W. Denno, Lethal Injection Chaos, Post-Baze, 102 Geo. L.J. 1331 (2014).
  61. Nathaniel N.W. Crier, What You Don’t Know Will Kill You: A First Amendment Challenge to Lethal Injection Secrecy, 48 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Probs. 1 (2014).
  62. Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141 (US 1994).
  63. Tony Mauro, Justices Agree to Review Lethal-Injection Protocol, Nat’l L.J. (Jan. 23, 2005)
  64. Exec. Order No. 2014-08, Governor of Oklahoma (April 22, 2014),
  65. Nadia M. Sawicki, “There Must Be a Means” The Backward Jurisprudence of Baze v. Rees, 12 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1407 (2010).
  66. Elizabeth Cohen, Lethal Injection Crator, CNN, (last visited Apr. 18, 2015).

67.Kevin Conlon, Pennsylvania Governor Halts Death Penalty While Error Prone System Reviewed, CNN (Feb. 14, 2015, 10:00 AM),

68.Death penalty facts that may surprise you, ABC (Sept. 8, 2014, 7:35 AM),

69.Josh Levs and Greg Botelho, Oklahoma's Botched Lethal Injection Marks New Front in Battle Over Executions, CNN (Sept. 8, 2014, 7:16 AM),

70.Arizona Botches Execution of Joseph Wood, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., (last visted Apr. 18, 2015).

71.In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888 (8th Circuit 2014).

  1. Deborah W. Deno, The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 49 (2007).
  2. Morales v. Tilton, 465 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
  3. Deborah W. Denno, Death Bed, 124 TriQuarterly J. 141(2006).
  4. CORINNA BARRETT LAIN, Lethal Injection, Politics, and the Future of the Death Penalty: The Shifting Politics of the Death Penalty: The Politics of Botched Executions, 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 825 (2015).
  5. Lawrence Hummer, I Witnessed Ohio's Execution of Lizzie McGuire. What I Saw Was Inhumane, Guardian (Jan. 22, 2014, 1:51 PM),
  6. Alan Johnson, Inmate's Death Called "Horrific' Under New, 2-Drug Execution, Columbus Dispatch (Jan. 17, 2014, 10:02 AM),
  7. Nick OMalley, Botched Ohio Execution Raises Death Penalty Dilemma, Sydney Morning Herald (Jan. 19, 2014),
  8. Gary Strauss, Ohio Killer Slow Execution Raises Controversy, USA Today (Jan. 16, 2014, 8:18 PM),
  9. Erin Chemerinsky, When it Matters Most, It is Still the Kennedy Court, 11 Green Bag 427 (2008).

81.Paul Liton, Physician Participation in Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the Practical Implications of Their Relationship, 41 J.L. Med. & Ethics 333 (2013).

  1. Mark Barman, Oklahoma Carries Out First Execution Since Botch After Supreme Court Denies Stay, Washington Post, (last visited Apr. 20, 2015).
  2. Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court to Review Oklahoma Lethal Injection Procedure, CNN (Jan. 23, 2015, 8:57 PM),
  3. Josh Sanburn, Arizona Execution Will Move Forward After Last-Minute Appeals, Time (July 23, 2014),
  4. William Chappell, Supreme Court Tells Oklahoma to Put Off Executions, Citing Drug Dispute, NPR (Jan. 28, 2015, 4:10 PM),
  5. Br. for Pet’rs, Glossip v. Gross, cert. denied, 83 U.S.L.W. 3635 (U.S. Jan. 28, 2015) (No. 14–7955).
  6. Lyle Denniston, Court to rule on lethal-injection protocol, SCOTUS BLOG (Jan. 23, 2015, 4:23 PM),
  7. Dan Solomon, What Running Out of Pentobarbital Means For TX, Texas Monthly (Oct. 8, 2013, 2:15 PM),
  8. Nomaan Merchant, AG: Texas can keep execution drug source secret, DALLAS. Morning News (May 29, 2014, 7:33 AM),
  9. Whitaker v. Livingston, 732 F.3d 465 (5th Circuit 2013).
  10. Thorson v. Epps, 701 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2012).
  11. Sell v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
  12. Mary Fan, The Supply-Side Attack on Lethal Injection and the Rise of Execution Secrecy, 95 B.U. L. Rev. 427 (2015).
  13. Wellons v. Comm’r, Ga. Department of Corr., 754 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2014).
  14. Erik Eckholm, Arizona Takes Nearly 2 Minutes to Execute Inmate, N.Y. Times(Jul. 23, 2014),
  15. Katie Roth Heilman, Comment, Contemplating "Cruel and Unusual": A Critical Analysis of Baze v. Rees in the Context of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment "Proportionality" Jurisprudence, 58 AM. U. LAW REV. 633 (2009).
  16. Br. of Sixteen Professors of Pharmacology as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Glossip v. Gross, cert. rejected, 83 U.S.L.W. 3635 (U.S. Jan. 28, 2015) (No. 14–7955).
  17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
  18. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
  19. Br. for Resp’t, Glossip v. Gross, cert. considered, 83 U.S.L.W. 3635 (U.S. Jan. 28, 2015) (No. 14–7955).

South Texas Law Review Summer 2015 Write-On, Part B: Editing Exercise

III.Evolution of Amateuriśm

A debate between two university-officials in 1980 helped formulate the definition of amateurism—witch has continuously evolved in the hundred years since.[8] Today, amateurism is defined by: a commercial motivation to participaté and a protection from educational enterprises.[9] Dr. DrakeRamoray the current president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) has stated that the association’s aMaTeUrIsM rules historically guaranty “[A]ny resources provided to a student-athlete are only thosethat are focused on getting an education…”[10] Courts have long-held that the ncaa“needs ample latitude” to maintain a revered tradition of “amateürism in college sports”.[11] Indeed, these sentements have extend into state courts, addressing amateurisms affect on state-law issues.[12] However, state judges are beginning to broaden the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s narrow discretion by devaluing the historical authority of amateurism in collegiate athletics[13].

The NCAA has recently relaxed amateurism provisions that have modified the functionality of amateurism; and—arguably—reduced the principals of amateurism to a mere function of the NCAAs deifnition.[14] One Commentator is of the opinion that “[t]he amateurism ideal seems to be largely rööted in the belief that expanding college athletes’s rights to compensation somehow maintains academic performance as a main purpose of the athletes’ college careers.”[15] While the Ncaa consistently reasoned that the ideal of amateurism maintains the public’s interest and support in collegiate athletics, several reports support the conclusion that consumerdemand for the NCAA’s product has been significantly effected by the before-mentioned alterations in how ‘amateurism’has been defined[16].

Glaring [in]equities between athletic scholarships for student-athletes, and the financial reward enjoyed by the NCAA member schools have resulted in current and former studentathletes challlenging the NCAAs’ sovereignty to arbritrarily modify its’ definition treatment of amateurs. Lawsuits challenging the NACAs amateurism regulations range acrõss several areas of law, including antitrust claimsand challenges under both federal[17] and state constitutionallaw.[18] Courts have historically not favored the NCAA’s time–honored defense of amaateurism,[19] but clams alłleging anti-trust violations and unconscionable infringements on ones right of publicity have gained traction; and have recently proved to be “game-changers”[20]!

4.Arguments Against Amateur-Status

A.Antittrust

The Sherman Pro-Trust Act, hereinafter the “Sherman Act”, provides that “(e)very contract . . . .in restraint of trade or commerce....is declared to be legal.”[21]Several states have enacted similar antittrust laws—which address the laws interaction with the Sherman Act.[22] In fact Texxas specifically harmonizes it’s antitrust laws with “federal [judicial] interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes.”[23] While exclusive contracts {i.e. between the NCAA and EA Sports} are not a per-se violation, they are not subject to the rule of reason.[24] In order to demonstrate a violation of the Mike Sherman Act, under the rule of reason, a plaintiff must show:“1) that there was a contract; 2) that agreement reasonably restrains trade ... ; and (3 that the restraint affected interstate commerce”.[25] The 7th Circuit has explained the rule of reason through the mechanics of its burdenshifting framework: “A restraint violates the rule of reason if the restraint's harm to competition outweighs its procompetitive effects. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the restraint produces ‘significant anticompetitive effects’ within a ‘relevant market.’ If the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must come foreword with evidence of the restraint's procombative effects. The plaintiff must then show that ‘any legitimate objectives can be achieved in a substantially less restrictive manner.’”[26]

For a court too find a substantial adverse anti-competitive effect, a defendant must show 3 factors: 1) the defendants contracted among each other; 2) this led to anti-competitive affects in relevant markets; (3) that the objects of that contract were illegal; and4) injury to the plaintiffs occurred as a proximate result.[27] Plaintiff’s have only recently successfully pleaded that the NCAAs contracts with various television networks and EA Sports violates these antitrust provision.[28]

The Supreme court established a seemingly-insurmountable block to anti-trust suits against the NCAA by affording the NCAA the authority to safeguard ideals of amateurism and allowing future Courts to "Defer to the NCAA’s role as [the] Purveyor of Amateurism.“[29] Indeed, cases subsequent to the court’s decision in Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma permitted the notion of amateurism to become a viable defense of justification for any anti-competitive NCAA rule facing an antitrust challenge.[30]Should I be here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1

WRITE-ONCOMPETITIONPLEDGE

I herebypledgethatthecasenoteI havesubmittedforthewrite-oncompetitionis exclusively myworkandthatIhavenotcollaboratedwithorreceivedassistancefromany other person in its preparation.

Ihave readandI understandtherequirementsforSouthTexasLawRevieweligibility.I acknowledgethatintheeventI donotmeettheacademicrequirementsfortheSouthTexasLaw ReviewthatI willnotbeeligibleforSouthTexasLawReviewcandidacydespitethefactthatI haveturned in acasenote forthewrite-on competition.

Signature:
Print Name:
Date:

1

[1]PleasecarefullyreviewtheSouthTexasLawReviewSectionofthe 2014–2015SouthTexasCollegeofLawStudent Handbook (pp.246–47)toensureyoureligibility. Generally,youmusthaveaminimumG.P.A.of3.25,andyoumusthavecompleted a minimumofthirty(30)credithoursandLegalResearchandWritingIandII.Additionally, allSouthTexasLaw Reviewcandidatesmusthaveatleastfourremaining semesters,whichmayincludesummers.Specific questions regardingyoureligibility formembership ontheSouth TexasLawReviewshouldbedirectedtoKelsie Haaland, EditorinChief,at:.

[2]ELIZABETHFAJANSMARYR.FALK,SCHOLARLYWRITINGFORLAWSTUDENTS:SEMINARPAPERS,LAWREVIEWNOTESANDLAWREVIEWCOMPETITIONPAPERS(WestPublishingCo.2005).

[3]776 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2015) cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1173 (2015).

[4]THEBLUEBOOK:AUNIFORMSYSTEMOFCITATION(ColumbiaLawReviewAss’netal.eds.,19thed. 2010).

[5]The Greenbook: Texas Rules of Form (Texas Law Review Ass’n ed. 2010).

[6]TEXASLAWREVIEW,MANUALON USAGE STYLE(Texas Law Review Ass’n ed., 11thed.2008).

[7]TheWrite-OnCompetitionPledgeSheetislocatedattheendofthispacket.If you submityourcase noteviamail, pleasemakesureto includethe signedandcompletedWrite-OnCompetitionPledgeSheetwithyourpacket.

[8] Kay Hawes, Debate On Amateurism has Evolved overtime, National Collegiate Athletic Association(January 3, 2000), available at

[9]NCAA, NCAA Division I Manuel: January 2014–15 art. 2.9, available at ncaa.com.

[10]See Transcript of Record,1737, O’Bannon v. NCAA, 7 F. Supp. 3d. 995 (Cal. 2014) (No. 241) (2014 WL 6907629) (testimony of Dr. Mark Emmert) (Jun. 19, 2014).

[11] Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. The Bd. Of Regents of the Univ. of Ok., 468 U.S.A. 85 (1984).

[12]See also, e.g.,Waldrep v. Tx. Employers Insurance Ass’n, 21 S.W.3d 692, 688—01 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010, writ. ref’d) (a former college basketball player was an employee of the University where he played because there is a valid contract-to-hire under the NCAA’s amateurism regulations).

[13]O’Bannon v. NCAA, 7 F. Supp. 3d, at 955 (2014).

[14]Dennie, Changing the Game–The Litigation that may be the Catalyst for Change in Intercollegiate Athletics, 62 Syracuse Orangemen L. Review 15,21–22 (Spring 2012) (“allowing student athlete’s to obtain money for competition prior to enrollment . . . to compete as a professional in one sport and an amateur in another . . . and to complete as a member of a team.”).See, e.g., NCAA Division 1 Manual, infranote 17, 12.1.2.4.1, at 66, 12.1.3, at 65, 12.2.3.2.1, at 63.

[15] VanStory, Paying the Players; how ncaa Videogames Violate College Athletes’ Rights to Party 18 PHILADELPHIA L.J. 77, 75 (2012).

[16]In the matter of NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licens. Litigation, 37 F.Sup.3rd 1126, 1146-1148 (NDCa. 2014).

[17]E.G.,N.C.A.A. v. Bored Of Regents of the Univ. of Ok., 468 S. Ct. 85 (S. Ct. 1985); Metro. Intercollegiate Basketball Ass’n v. NCAA, 339 F. Supp. 2d 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Lawl v NCAA, 143 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 1998)

[18]E.g.,NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 181–82 (1988), NCAA, et al., vs. Yeo, 114 S.W.3d 584, 598–99 (Tex. Civ. App–Austin [3rd Dist.] 2003, pet. denied), abrogated on other grounds, 171 S.W.2nd 863 (TX 2005).

[19]Christian,supra fn. 22, at p. 22.

[20]SeeJames Johnson, Oh Bannon: What’sThe Right of Publícity, 86NY State Bar Assoc J. 37, 39 (2014).

[21] 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. The sherman act ensures that a single company will become a monopoly that controls an entire industry or market place.See Lion Offer, Monopolistic Sleeper: How the Video Game Industry Fell Asleep to Realize That EA Was Neveren Charge, 8 Duq. Bus. L. Rev. 91, 102 – 103 (2008).