Cases For First Law Class

Front 1

Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Back 1

Gave more rights to private institutions.
The seminal case that established Public/Private Dichotomy.

Front 2

Marbury v. Madison

Back 2

Established concept of judicial Review.
Said that courts interpret laws and say if it is constitutional.

Front 3

Powe v. Miles

Back 3

Students in the private part of the school did not have to have due process.
Students that were in public part of school did have to have due process.

Front 4

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Back 4

Lemon test determines whether or not state could fund teachers.
1) state statute must have a secular purpose
2) Must not advance religion
3) not excessively entangle the state

Front 5

Tilton v. Richardson

Back 5

Higher education Facility act.
Gave money to religious schools to build facilities for secular education and buildings.

Front 6

Widmar v. Vincent

Back 6

K12 case where court said if you allow one, you have to allow all in respect to religious groups using space.

Front 7

Davey v. Locke

Back 7

Allowed the state of Washington to deny a scholarship because the student declared his major as pastoral ministries.

Front 8

Functions of Law

Back 8

- Protects Individuals and Property (as in Eminent Domain)
- Promotes General Welfare
- Settle Disputes
- Maintain Order

Front 9

Sources of Law

Back 9

- Constitution (state and federal)
- Court Cases (precedent)
- Statutes (federal and stae)

Front 10

Theory of Declaration

Back 10

Courts do not make law, they simply declare it upon its discovery.

Front 11

Hopewood v Texas

Back 11

Diversity was not an appropriate goal for college.

Front 12

Writ of Cerciari

Back 12

Appeal to Supreme court. Only happens by permission.

Front 13

Functions of Courts

Back 13

- Settle Disputes
- determine constitutionality

Front 14

Structure of Courts

Back 14

- Courts of General Jurisdiction
- Courts of Special Jurisdiction
- Juvenile Courts/Domestic Violence/Traffic
- Small Claims Court
- Appellate

Front 15

Federal Courts

Back 15

- U.S. District Courts
- U.S. Courts of Appeal (11 Circuits)
- Supreme Court

Front 16

Procedure of Courts

Back 16

- Plaintiff
- Defendant
- Appellant

Front 17

Summons

Back 17

official notification that proceedings have begun

Front 18

Subpeona

Back 18

Summon to Appear

Front 19

Shotgun Theory of litigation

Back 19

Name as many defendants, paying special attention to those with deep pockets

Front 20

Demure

Back 20

Request to drop case

Front 21

Stages of litigation

Back 21

- pleading
- Discovery
- Trial
- Appeal

Front 22

Higher Ed Pre - 1960

Back 22

- Homogeneous
- in loco perentis
- deference to authority

Front 23

Higher Ed Post - 1960

Back 23

- Student Activism
- Heterogeneous
- Student Consumerism
- Parents are right
- want student dollars
- raise the age of majority
- litigation mushrooms

Front 24

Life Cycle of Litigation

Back 24

Regulation moves to legislation moves to debate moves to awareness

Front 25

Treatment Law

Back 25

Do what you want and defend yourself

Front 26

Preventive law

Back 26

Risk Management

Front 27

State Action

Back 27

so entangled in a state function that it becomes a state actor
...shown when a contract with a governmental agency requires it
...state constitutions requires it
...when a private institution offers it

Front 28

Moose Lodge v Irvis

Back 28

State Action case argued because state issue a state license was enough to declare Moose Lodge a State Actor. Decision: Issuing license did not make lodge a state actor

Front 29

Keegan v Deleware

Back 29

Deleware Mass on Campus. Keegan celebrated mass in Res Hall. Decision: if you allow one then you have to allow all.

Front 30

Gay Rights v Georgetown

Back 30

Gay rights students wanted to start org. Denied school recognition because catholic school. Local ordinance raised standard. Courts found the school didn't have to endorse the group but had to provide organization equal access.

Front 31

Rosenberger vs UVA

Back 31

Content neutral case. UVA did not like content of newsletter so didn't' want to give money.

Front 32

CLS v Martinez

Back 32

CLS denied student access to membership because it required a faith pledge. Because of a non-discrimination policy the University told them they couldn't deny access. Finding for university.

Front 33

Only states to require CARE Team

Back 33

Illinois and Virginia

Front 34

Shelton College v State Board of Education

Back 34

Federal court said that the state has the right to regulate private education to some degree. If the school is giving out academic degrees. Academics are different than regulating operations.

Front 35

Regents of the Univ of Mich vs State of Michigan

Back 35

Finding that constitutionally created institutions are autonomous from the whims of gen. assembly. Only changes are by changing constitution.

Front 36

How Institutions can be created

Back 36

- Chartered
- Constitutionally
- Statutorily

Front 37

Marder v. Board of Regents

Back 37

Personnel records are not confidential in Michigan

Front 38

Dunn v Al State Univ.

Back 38

Sunshine Law

Front 39

Lieber v. Southern Ill. Univ.

Back 39

Landlord wanted directory information. Finding: Doesn't matter what purpose, you must give directory info (although you can make people pay for it). Name/address/Phone#/email/date attendance

Front 40

Gonzaga University v. Doe

Back 40

"No private right of action" to sue in FERPA cases. Defines ramifications for FERPA violations. All that can happen is taking away federal funds and only if it happens often.

Front 41

Coledonian Record Publishing Co., Inc v. Vermont State Colleges

Back 41

Public Records Laws vary by state. In Vermont Conduct Records are private and therefore protected by FERPA but Crime logs are public and therefore not protected.

Front 42

Why are Faculty more likely to sue?

Back 42

because of property rights ie discrimination and employment

Front 43

Why don't students sue more often?

Back 43

because all they have is discrimination and constitutional rights

Front 44

State Role in higher education

Back 44

1) Funding
2) Regulation
3) Planning (enrollment)
4) Coordinating (post-tenure review process)

Front 45

Eminent Domain

Back 45

State authorizes itself itself to acquire land for its own use. Typically for the common good.

Front 46

State Regulations

Back 46

- Collective Bargaining
- Workman's Comp
- Public Records Laws (FOIA)
- Sunshine Laws

Front 47

State operates through

Back 47

General Powers

Front 48

Federal operates through

Back 48

limited powers

Front 49

Helvering v Davis

Back 49

Found that federal government could be involved in higher education through general welfare clause of education act

Front 50

Limited Powers of Federal government

Back 50

- Spending Power
- Taxes
- Commerce Clause
- Civil Rights Acts

Front 51

Section 504

Back 51

Part of the rehabilitation act that protects for disability

Front 52

IDEA

Back 52

requires individual education for disabilities in primary and secondary public education

Front 53

ADA

Back 53

Protects for disabilities but not as aggressive as IDEA

Front 54

DREAM Act

Back 54

currently if you give in-state to undocumented students you need to give it to everyone. This ACT would take away the "give it to everyone" part

Front 55

Express Authority

Back 55

Literal interpretation of the policy or job description

Front 56

Implied Authority

Back 56

What can reasonably be inferred from what is said.

Front 57

Inherent Authority

Back 57

The broad interpretation of implied authority

Front 58

Apparent authority

Back 58

the creation of authority where none exists - the university doesn't have to help you when you are out of your locus of control

Front 59

Dupree v Saunders

Back 59

When you take administrative action as the administrator over someone that only effects their job duties but not anything else then there is little they can do.

Front 60

Morris v Nowotny

Back 60

A student was banned from campus for mental illness. Finding: DOS and counselor were acting in the best way they could with the information they had and within their job description.

Front 61

Agency Theory

Back 61

Supervisor can be held responsible for their staff - Respondent Superior - let the master answer

Front 62

Tort

Back 62

civil wrong other than breach of contract for which damages can be awarded

Front 63

Civil

Back 63

makes the injured party whole again by giving them money

Front 64

4 Grounds for action in torts

Back 64

1) Intentional Interference
2) Strict Liability
3) Negligence
4) Defimation

Front 65

Intentional Interference

Back 65

- Assault (fear of safety)
- Battery (contact that causes injury)
- Interference with piece of mind (bullying and stalking)
- False imprisonment

Front 66

Strict Liability

Back 66

the defendant is responsible for the injury or act even though it is not their fault because they have money to pay.

Front 67

Hamburger v Cornell

Back 67

student in lab injured at no fault of Cornell but they were asked to pay because they had money

Front 68

Negligence

Back 68

conduct that falls below established common standard that results in accident or injury. Reasonable person could have anticipated injury.

Front 69

Four rules for negligence

Back 69

1) duty that obligates actor
2) must be breach of duty or failure to give standard of care
3) behavior must be proximate cause
4) must be injury or actual loss for which compensation may be awarded

Front 70

Tarasoff v Regents of Univ of California

Back 70

Duty to warn case. Student said in counseling that he wanted to hurt Tarasoff. The counselor had a duty to warn her.

Front 71

Bradshaw v. Rawlings

Back 71

the township and beer saler found guilty. Adviser to sophomore class not guilty. Kid was being driven by drunk person from class party where beer was served.

Front 72

Polgar v Syracuse Univ.

Back 72

Slip and fall. You must do is make good faith effort for something you knew about

Front 73

Contributory Negligence

Back 73

all or nothing

Front 74

Comparative Negligence

Back 74

based on some responsibility

Front 75

Peterson v San Fran Community College

Back 75

Peterson assaulted in parking lot. Paying for tag made student invitee so had a duty for reasonable safe premise and school knew about the bushes and attacks.

Front 76

Furek v. Univ of Deleware

Back 76

(an anomaly case) Univer and fraterniy member responsible for hazing. Univer. because the frat house was on premise.

Front 77

Beach v Univ of Utah

Back 77

Student went on camping trip, got drunk at party, fall in ditch. Finding: no special relationship because the Univ. could not know she would drink. She volunteered to consume

Front 78

Excessive Force

Back 78

If the person can no longer defend themselves

Front 79

Invitee

Back 79

a reasonably safe premise

Front 80

Standard care

Back 80

expectations created by business or reasonable person or if you raised it on your own

Front 81

Levels of care

Back 81

- Tenent is high
- transient even higher (hotel)

Front 82

Defenses of Negligence

Back 82

- contributory negligence
- comparative negligence
- Assumption of risk
- Immunity
- Charitable Org
- Childrent, the mentally incompetent, diminished capacity

Front 83

Contributory Negligence

Back 83

If the party played a role, they get nothing

Front 84

"Doctrine of last clear chance"

Back 84

hitting the car in front of you

Front 85

Comparative Negligence

Back 85

Proportionality - what part is person responsible for?

Front 86

Assumption of risk

Back 86

proving the party assumed risk (*Waiver*)

Front 87

Defamation

Back 87

communication to others that diminishes others good name, damages reputation, injures self esteem
- must be able to show real loss
- contextual (comedians)
- twin torts, liable, slander

Front 88

Defenses for Defamation

Back 88

- statement must be false (just say you believed it)
- the statement must bring hatred, disgust, and ridicule on the person
- has to result in some lost (must prove loss)
Defamation per se 1) if you are telling the truth its traditionally total defense 2) Privaledge (absolute & conditional) - the power or authority to do something protects them from what they say

Front 89

To avoid liability

Back 89

- avoid risk all together
- transfer liability
- managing/monitoring risk
- insure against it

Front 90

Personal liability

Back 90

1) Act within the scope of your authority
2) Act in good faith
3) Follow directions consistently and carefully
4) Report accurately and quickly
5) Don't make assumption (make sure you close the loop)

Front 91

NLRB v Yeshiva University

Back 91

faculty wanted to unionize but not relinquish shared governance. Finding: you can't be labor and management

Front 92

St. Mary's Honor Center v Hicks

Back 92

Prima facia case (on its face) fired based on race. Just have to prove that you are protected class and you weren't hired. Burden on employer is to show a plausible reason why person wasn't hired. Burden on employee rather than employer to disprove.

Front 93

Martin v Parrish

Back 93

Used language that was harmful in class. Finding - What you say has to be germaine to the subject.

Front 94

Chantos v Rhea

Back 94

Rhea accused of sexual harassment. Student didn't want formal complaint. Chantos was assaulted. Court ruled that the univ. was indifferent. They should have known and done more.

Front 95

Subryan v Regents of the Univ of Colorado

Back 95

because he said unflattering things about the management they changed 3 year to 1 year contract. Told him to let them know if he had problem. Court sided with faculty member saying management should not have changed contract in the middle of it.

Front 96

Kunda v. Muhlenberg College

Back 96

Said wasn't promoted because she was a woman. Court said they had discriminated so she should be promoted. They said no right to make tenure decision. Court said they were only situating her where she would have been. A Theory of Declaration case.

Front 97

Hayes v Trustees of Indiana

Back 97

at will employee who took retirement said she was discriminated against per age. Since she was at will and no contract she had no case. Along with no tort because she took so long.

Front 98

Sweezy v New Hampshire

Back 98

faculty asked to testify and refused. Wanted to be remanded for obstruction but court said no because of the faculty aspect

Front 99

Valentine v Smith

Back 99

person not hired because they were "overqualified". The other two candidates were minorities and she was white. Court said that affirmative action plan was constitutional and the plan did not require hiring unqualified people of stop white people from applying so upheld

Front 100

Palmer v Distric Board of Trustees

Back 100

Another prima facia case about age discrimination. Cant just assign number to let people go

Front 101

Lovelac v Soutehrn Massachusetts University

Back 101

faculty member told to lower standards. Said no and got fired. Court said Univ. had the right to set standards and he was speaking as an employee so not covered. Lovelace was also on defined contract.

Front 102

Garcetti et al v Ceballos

Back 102

put employer in a bad light about warrant. Didn't get promotion. Finding: he was speaking as an employee so not protected

Front 103

Urofsky v. Gilmore

Back 103

Six professors challenged constitutionality of stopping sexually explicit materials from being viewed on state computers. Finding: if your going to view porn then ask the dean

Front 104

Pickering v Board of Education

Back 104

teacher fired for saying bad things about use of tax money. Found he was a public citizen and created pickering test:
1) must speak on matter of public concern
2) Speak as a private citizen
3) further the distance about subject or issue the better
4) disrupts immediate work environment
5) effectiveness of you in your job

Front 105

Perry v Sinderman

Back 105

was terminated and not renewed because of his negative comments. Series of 1 year contracts. Because it was custom and tradition to rehire without eval he had an expectation of employment

Front 106

Institution Faculty Relationship

Back 106

1) State Law
2) Admin Regs
3) Contract Law
4) State and Federal Constitutions