Howard Hanna

Elk County Ammo And Arms

Elk County Ammo And Arms

Street Machines


DR. Tarbox

DR. Tarbox



UPMC Cole Careers

Solomon's Auction & Yard Sale Page


Thursday, September 11, 2014

Judge John Leete’s 39-page decision allows Paterno Estate to challenge NCAA sanctions

Court: Paternos can challenge consent decree

September 11, 2014 

A Centre County Court of Common Pleas judgment came down Thursday giving the Paterno family and its co-filers the news they had been waiting for.

“Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the consent decree,” the court documents said.

Senior Judge John Leete
Judge John Leete’s 39-page decision is based on arguments made earlier this year in the case brought by the Paternos, four members of the Penn State board of trustees, four members of the university faculty and former football players and coaches against the NCAA and Penn State regarding the consent decree, the contract that led to the historic sanctions against Penn State after the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

The order, dated Wednesday, overrules seven of the NCAA’s objections and sustains three.

“It is also worth nothing that this case is unique,” the judge said in his decision. “The alleged harm does not come from an action, duty or relationship resulting from the consent decree, but instead is derived from the language in the document itself. The court finds this distinguishing characteristic alone also warrants plaintiffs standing to challenge the consent decree.”

The court also dismissed the NCAA’s claims that the estate, not being part of the consent decree, cannot contest it.

Read more here:


Anonymous said...

Huge kudos and dildines to the Paterno family for not taking this stuff laying down. Some terribly hanus behavior by Sandusky does not mean the Paterno legacy should be soiled.

Anonymous said...

Finally! Sad that so much damage was done to good folks by dirtbag Sandusky.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Penn State officials, just like the
hierarchy of the Catholic
Church, were involved in
covering up the abuse of
children. Both were more
concerned with fundraising
and keeping their respective
images, than the welfare
of the children entrusted
to them.