• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What Can Be Done?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

#16
If they are not forthcoming with said admission and apology, and if you want to force the matter, then you are going to have to pursue it through legal channels. I'll ask again...how much is it worth to you?
I guess to start with - 2000 for the cost of the new schools tuition and fees, another 1000 for the gas it cost my wife to travel a half hour five days week due to this change / those are clear expenses that can be shown
 


#17
Is the new school is $2000 more than the old?

$1000 / 180 days in the school year. Is $5.55 per day. That's about 2 gallons of gas per day. You would of course have to subtract what your wife was paying for gas taking her to the former school.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
#18
This is going to move slightly off-topic...If I understood your original (now missing) post, the spurring factor was that your daughter didn't play on the extracurricular team? Does she play on any travel/extracurricular team? Having dealt with college sports/recruiting, not playing off-season (i.e. travel) is kind of a deal breaker - the skills aren't sufficient.

ETA: Especially in more popular sports...
 
#19
The video, then, gives viewers a false impression of your daughter's skills by singling out only her mistakes?

Is the video still online available for viewing?

What state are you in?
Absolutely - in fact, in the same game she was the second leading scorer and only played a quarter of the amount of time that the leading scorer did (coach's relative). Didn't miss a jump shot she took - in other words, there were authentic highlights.
No, the video had been taken down by the school administration after my complaint, but the rumor spread that my daughter posted it. But the video software company Hudl's legal attorney made it emphatically stated that it came from the coach. In the coach's statement in the public notice he accused my daughter or someone else with access (yes, him) of doing it. But the Professional Standards Office never did a thorough job of investigating otherwise they would have substantiated the fact from Hudl's testimony and evidence.
 
#20
This is going to move slightly off-topic...If I understood your original (now missing) post, the spurring factor was that your daughter didn't play on the extracurricular team? Does she play on any travel/extracurricular team? Having dealt with college sports/recruiting, not playing off-season (i.e. travel) is kind of a deal breaker - the skills aren't sufficient.

ETA: Especially in more popular sports...
You misunderstand - she didn't play for their summer AAU team, we played for one that would take her to a bigger stage (and it did), which was a catalyst for their treatment (before they were fine with her). She did play for their high school team (that's where the video and treatment came about). She has since, left. Of course, she plays travel ball during the off season.
 
Last edited:

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
#22
You misunderstand - she didn't play for their summer AAU team, which was a catalyst for their treatment (before they were fine with her). She did play for their high school team (that's where the video and treatment came about). She has since, left.
No - I understood. Does she play on any other team (or has/had she)? As I said - moving slightly off topic.
 

quincy

Senior Member
#23
Florida does not recognize a separate "false light" cause of action, with false light being a true but misleading publication. Instead, Florida uses its defamation laws, specifically "defamation by implication," to address publications that create a false impression about a person that harms that person's reputation.

You might want to have the video and facts personally reviewed by an attorney in your area to see if there is a supportable legal action worth pursuing.
 
#24
Great...$3,000. Now, go pay an attorney $10k to (maybe) get it back.
Funny, I get your point
Florida does not recognize a separate "false light" cause of action, with false light being a true but misleading publication. Instead, Florida uses its defamation laws, specifically "defamation by implication," to address publications that create a false impression about a person that harms that person's reputation.

You might want to have the video and facts personally reviewed by an attorney in your area to see if there is a supportable legal action worth pursuing.
Thanks, this is some useful information and clear direction
 
#25
No - I understood. Does she play on any other team (or has/had she)? As I said - moving slightly off topic.
Yes, she plays on a team that goes to major events - their club did not (that's why we left it). Still should have not impacted her opportunity at the school (unless of course, your daughter and another relative plays for your high school team and another kid might take away their face time due to her skill level - since it's your daughter's last chance because she's a senior).
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
#26
(unless of course, your daughter and another relative plays for your high school team and another kid might take away their face time due to her skill level - since it's your daughter's last chance because she's a senior).
And this happens, regardless.
 

quincy

Senior Member
#28
... Thanks, this is some useful information and clear direction
You're welcome.

For a more thorough discussion of Florida's defamation by implication law, here is a link to Florida's Supreme Court decision in Jews for Jesus, Inc., v. Edith Rapp. It was this case that led to Florida's rejection of the invasion of privacy "false light" tort, seeing it as a duplication of the State's defamation law.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc06-2491.pdf

Florida's Supreme Court said: "... we hold that a communication can be considered defamatory if it 'prejudices' the plaintiff in the eyes of a 'substantial and respectable minority of the community' ..."

Good luck to your daughter.
 
Last edited:
#29
You're welcome.

For a more thorough discussion of Florida's defamation by implication law, here is a link to Florida's Supreme Court decision in Jews for Jesus, Inc., v. Edith Rapp. It was this case that led to Florida's rejection of the invasion of privacy "false light" tort, seeing it as a duplication of the State's defamation law.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc06-2491.pdf

Good luck to your daughter.
Quincy, you have been most helpful - thank you so much
 
Sponsored Ad

Top