INSTRUCTIONS: CITATION EXERCISE



Instructions: Citation Exercise

Please correct each citation/footnote (20 total). Please use the 18th Edition of the Harvard Blue Book to complete the exercise. Blue Books will be on reserve at the Willamette Law Library, and are available at any law library and most bookstores if you do not have access to the Willamette Library. All information necessary should be contained somewhere in each footnote. However, if you feel there is information omitted that is necessary to correct the citation, simply place such information in brackets, i.e. Doe v. Smith, 112 Idaho 18, [pinpoint page] (Idaho 2001).

You are not to consult ANY outside sources in order to complete this exercise. Similarly, you are not to discuss the exercise with anyone, including other students or legal professionals. All work should be solely your own work, and in submitting your entry, you so certify as stated in the Rules for the Writing Competition. The Rules for the Writing Competition also apply to the Citation Exercise, and the process for submitting your entries is outlined therein.

One final note, the text does not relate in any way to the footnotes, so (lucky for you), you do not have to worry about substantively checking each citation. Rather, make sure each footnote conforms with Blue Book standards as stated above. Good luck!

Tanks for Nothing, NBA

By: Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy

April 11, 2007



If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston.[1] Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time?[2] Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position.[3] And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator").[4] Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.[5] When the goin' gets tough ... Pierce gets to the bench.[6]

It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA.[7] With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery.[8] You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game.[9] When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"[10]

Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing.[11] And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams.[12] Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year).[13] Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.[14]

In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries?[15] Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats.[16] This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger?[17] Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?

On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league.[18] During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.

During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up).[19] But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams.[20] In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team instantly competitive: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not.

-----------------------

[1] U.S. Const. Amendment 1.

[2] Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990), Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296. 303-04 (1940)

[3] Id. at 875, See e.g, Wis. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

[4] Utah Code § 76-7-101 (2006), see also Hale, Matthew,  History of the Pleas of the Crown.  v. 1, pg. 634 Philadelphia (1847).

[5]Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 162 (1878).

[6] Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 166.  Harris, George C., The Dangerous Patient Exception to the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: The Tarasoff Duty and the Jaffee Footnote, Washington Law Review v. 74 p. 33, 47 1999.

[7] See e.g. Cantwell v. Conn., 310 u.s. 296 , 303-4 (1940)

[8] see Smith, 494 U.S. at 876; but see Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

[9] Supra n. 4, Hale pg. 650; Ohio House Resolution 424, Reg. Session, 1999 155th Gen. Assembly.

[10] 3rd Torts Restatement comment b, § 43; Oct. 24, 2005, Senate Committee on Finance, Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman, Remarks at 2005 Independent Sector Annual Conference, CEO Summit.

[11] American Medical Ass’n, Medical Liability Reform—NOW! 19&20 (July 19, 2006), available at . (hereinafter Medical Liability Reform—Now!).

[12] Black’s Law Dictionary @ 978 (8th ed. ‘04).

[13] American Medical Ass’n, Medical Liability Reform—NOW!, infra note 11, at 47.

[14] See United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 343 (Western. D. Wash. 1974), affirmed, 520 F.2d 676, cert. denied, 423 US 1086 (1976), and rehearing denied, 424 US 978 (1976).

[15] 10 USCA Sec. 1100 (2006).

[16] See Gordon Adams, The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle (Council on Economic Priorities, ed., Transaction Publisher 1981) (1981), (describing mutually-reinforcing relationship among Congress, the Pentagon, and defense contractors).

[17] Mike Edelhart, The Cradle of Artificial Life, Pc Computing, Feb. 1991, 152, 154 (quoting Danny Hillis, founder of Thinking Machines Corp., Cambridge, MA).

[18] William Bechtel, Attributing Responsibility to Computer Systems, 16 Metaphilosophy 296, at 297 (1985).

[19] Paris v. Hilton, 365 So. 2nd 713, at 714 (Fla. 1978).  

[20] North Dakota Cent. Code, § 63-05-03 (2007)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download