We will use Trinidad Chambliss as an example.  Since a Mississippi judge has granted an injunction making him illegible would t that make him eligible only in Mississippi?  What if a Texas judge ruled him to be I eligible?  Could there be a situation where a player could be eligible in one state but not the others?  Disregard that the 5 x 5 could make this irrelevant.  
@Bobby Burton @CJ Vogel @Jeff Howe @Hank South @Gerry Hamilton

I was wondering the same thing. So his road games for example in other states he would be ruled ineligible but home games he could play in Mississippi. Unless I’m dumb

The full faith and credit clause and doctrine of res judicata prevents another court from relitigating the issue.  I am an attorney.

1 hour ago, Joe Zura said:

I was wondering the same thing. So his road games for example in other states he would be ruled ineligible but home games he could play in Mississippi. Unless I’m dumb

I’m not an expert in this in anyway but it seems like that would it could be the case. 

I don’t think that’s right bc think of all the EOs that get stopped by small activist judges. I think when a ruling with a national entity, ie the NCAA, it’s all encompassing. I am in no way shape or form a lawyer but that feels like it has to be the case.

1 hour ago, Hookem72 said:

The full faith and credit clause and doctrine of res judicata prevents another court from relitigating the issue.  I am an attorney.

You threw out some crazy Latin term and now I have to do some research.  
   I’m not sure at what level the injunction was passed at but my thoughts are if it is a state court and not a federal court that decision would impact that state but a different state could possibly rule differently.     I’ll have to find some time to do some reading and see if I can make my head hurt more. 😂 

2 hours ago, Paul L said:

We will use Trinidad Chambliss as an example.  Since a Mississippi judge has granted an injunction making him illegible would t that make him eligible only in Mississippi?  What if a Texas judge ruled him to be I eligible?  Could there be a situation where a player could be eligible in one state but not the others?  Disregard that the 5 x 5 could make this irrelevant.  
@Bobby Burton @CJ Vogel @Jeff Howe @Hank South @Gerry Hamilton

Why would any judge condemn him to writing illegibly??   🤔

It was a state court decision that preempted any Federal Court decision.

Edited April 28Apr 28 by Burnt Orange Horn

6 minutes ago, Aspann85 said:

I don’t think that’s right bc think of all the EOs that get stopped by small activist judges. I think when a ruling with a national entity, ie the NCAA, it’s all encompassing. I am in no way shape or form a lawyer but that feels like it has to be the case.

Executive orders are only effective in the Executive Department of government. There are no legally recognized "small activist judges," whatever they might be.

7 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Executive orders are only effective in the Executive Department of government. There are no legally recognized "small activist judges," whatever they might be.

Yea…ok 🤦🏻‍♂️ 

10 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Why would any judge condemn him to writing illegibly??   🤔

It was a state court decision that preempted any Federal Court decision.

Decisions such as these are based upon facts and opinions.  Perhaps a Texas judge feels that he should not have been granted permission to play another year and rules against Chambliss.  Granted this would have to go through the state rungs of the legal system before it would even be considered.   I’m ignorant to the finer details of the legal process and was just wondering if there is a world where this could happen.  
    I know this is apples to oranges but I view it similar to how gambling, speed limits and drinking ages are different in each state.  

16 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Why would any judge condemn him to writing illegibly??   🤔

It was a state court decision that preempted any Federal Court decision.

It took a minute but looking back I see that autocorrect was not my friend.  I definitely should have proofread before posting 

The full faith and credit clause is a federal statute that requires federal courts to give credit to state court decisions.  The Mississippi court entered the injunction first, so it was decided there first.  If a federal case is brought in Texas it would be precluded by the prior Mississippi decision under the doctrine of res judicata—which means it has been decided in latin.  If you didn’t have this rule, nothing would ever be final in the law in cases between the same parties. You would have endless lawsuits in different states and federal courts trying to get a different outcome.  The case was between Chambliss and the NCAA.  The NCAA is who decided eligibility, so someone else wouldnt have standing to sue Chambliss to prevent him from participating in Texas.  
Unsure if that answers your question but our country’s legal system is a balance between state and federal law known as federalism.  There is no chance the case can be relitigated again. Chambliss is clear.  

15 minutes ago, Hookem72 said:

The full faith and credit clause is a federal statute that requires federal courts to give credit to state court decisions.  The Mississippi court entered the injunction first, so it was decided there first.  If a federal case is brought in Texas it would be precluded by the prior Mississippi decision under the doctrine of res judicata—which means it has been decided in latin.  If you didn’t have this rule, nothing would ever be final in the law in cases between the same parties. You would have endless lawsuits in different states and federal courts trying to get a different outcome.  The case was between Chambliss and the NCAA.  The NCAA is who decided eligibility, so someone else wouldnt have standing to sue Chambliss to prevent him from participating in Texas.  
Unsure if that answers your question but our country’s legal system is a balance between state and federal law known as federalism.  There is no chance the case can be relitigated again. Chambliss is clear.  

Thanks for the explanation.  That makes sense.