Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="FloridaCuse, post: 5642491, member: 8912"]
From attorney David McKenzie this morning:

[MEDIA=twitter]2013974523591217245[/MEDIA]

Full tweet:

First, I wasn't there. But here is what the Durham docket shows after yesterday's TRO hearing: "02/02/2026, Add-On Motion Hearing (2:30 PM), Return on TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (RAND) Assigned to Judge Ed Wilson." You don't "return" on a TRO that wasn't granted, at least in part. The word "return" is dispositive. A TRO likely issued. You return on a TRO that issued and is set to expire. That's Rule 65. The February 2 hearing is likely to determine whether it continues as a preliminary injunction or dissolves. That's hornbook civil procedure.If you look at Duke's actual TRO Motion (not what Twitterheads say Duke moved for), here is what it asked for:

1. Enjoin Mensah from entering the transfer portal
2. Enjoin Mensah from enrolling at another institution
3. Enjoin Mensah from playing football elsewhere
4. Enjoin Mensah from licensing his NIL to another school
5. Enjoin any further breaches

If Mensah can't enroll or play for another school, then Duke likely prevailed on Nos. 2, 3, and presumably 4 and 5—the things that actually matter. We will know more later today, but to say that Duke failed at its TRO is straining my credulity considering what Duke got and the fact that the parties are "returning on TRO" at exactly the 10 day mark as Rule 65 requires.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?