Assumption Approach Case Study

The assumption approach is also harmful to plaintiffs, because courts allow claims to continue even if the claims are not viable. One of the reasons that the assumption approach exists is that courts rarely find that students were not provided enough process. Courts do not have to address the merits of the property interest question if they find that process was sufficient. The reason this is bad for plaintiffs is that this allows claims to continue even if they are not viable meaning that plaintiffs can lose both time and money. Horowitz provides a good example of this just like it does for defendants. The student in Horowitz had to spend three years to determine whether the University had provided her enough process, and if it had turned out she had not been, her case would have to go back on the question of whether she had a property interest in the first place. This is an illogical and an unfair result for a plaintiff when the property interest question is a preliminary question. The assumption approach also may represent a purposeful decision …show more content…
As previously discussed, the Supreme Court made it clear in Board of Regents v. Roth that the constitution does not create property interests, instead property interests derive primarily from state law. The Supreme Court has taken a hardline position on this, and has actively ensured that state law provides the entitlements that property interests require. An example of this is Leis v. Flynt. In Leis, the plaintiff claimed a property interest in temporarily appearing in out-of-state courts in Ohio based upon the common practice in state courts. But, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim because the interest did arise from an Ohio statute. The Supreme Court has been clear that unless a plaintiff can point to a specific state law, then she does not have a property