Shared Flashcard Set

Details

Cloud Higher Ed Law Final
N/A
18
Law
Graduate
05/06/2015

Additional Law Flashcards

 


 

Cards

Term
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Definition

Issue: Sullivan was Commissioner of Montgomery, AL, that supervised police force who imprisoned/assaulted civil rights protesters.  New York Times published ad purchased by four black ministers that allegedly defamed Sullivan

 

Principals: Sullivan and New York Times Co.

 

Decision: Sullivan couldn't prove actual malice

 

Implications: Affects relationship between press and public officials/agencies.  Requirement to prove actual malice.  Allowance for human error.  Central and privileged place of press in representative democracy.

Public officials or public figures are owned by the public; public has right to know about public matters and activities of public officials. 

Term
National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980)
Definition

Issue & Principals: Yeshiva (didn't want to allow collective bargaining of faculty), NLRB (wanted to provide Yeshiva faculty the opportunity to unionize)


Decision: SCOTUS voted 5-4 to deny the right of collective bargaining and exclude Yeshiva faculty protection from by NLRB


Implications: Academic professionals at private universities are excluded based on managerial roles assumed in participation in shared governance (mainly the faculty's role in hiring peers; at reputable institutions, senior faculty (in demanding shared governance) make majority of decisions, not the academic deans (not the case at community colleges)

Term
Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2nd 135 (3rd Cir. 1979, cert. denied, 446 U.S. 909 (1980)).
Definition

Issue: Bradshaw became a quadriplegic following car accident in which an intoxicated Rawlings was driving; Rawlings was drunk because of consuming alcohol purchased by university funds and university employee for a university sponsored activity.


Principals: Bradshaw (victim), Rawlings (driver) and Delaware Valley College


Decision: University has no duty to care for non-minors (no special relationship existed); not required to stop a third-party from harming another student.  


Implications: Colleges and universities are not insurers of students' safety or the safety of guests on their campuses (190); except in certain narrowly defined circumstances.  

 

Term
Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
Definition

Issue: The IRS chose to reject Bob Jones' tax exempt status based on their religiously based, racially segregated dating and marriage policies


Principals: Bob Jones, Internal Revenue Service


Decision: SCOTUS ruled the IRS decision constitutional. 


Implications: Laws or court decisions can affect the ability of religious institutions to retain religious distinctiveness

Term
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449 N.E.2d 331 (1983)
Definition

Issue: Mullins was a student at Pine Manor, an all-female insitution, when an unidentified assailant entered her on-campus room, forced her to another unlocked building on campus, where he proceeded to rape her.


Principals: Mullins (victim) and Pine Manor (all-female institution in urban Boston) including vice president of operations


Decision: SCOTUS ruled that there was sufficient evidence to find the defendants negligent in providing protection from criminal acts by a third party


Implications: Duty to protect against 3rd party, required by special relationship (failure to provide reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm); was crime foreseeable, and was Pine Manor negligent in exercise of duty to care/protect?

Term
Hanson v. Kynast, 494 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1986)
Definition

Issue: Kynast was a lacrosse player at Ashland University who threw down Hanson, of Ohio State, during match, causing Hanson to becoming quadriplegic.  Hanson sued Ashland/Kynast, on grounds that Kynast was agent of institution and Ashland was liable for not having a proper emergency protocols (negligence).


Principals: Kynast (Ashland player), Hanson (Ohio State player)


Decision: Kynast was voluntarily participating, therefore not an agent of Ashland (respondeat superior), and that injuries were on impact, not delay of treatment.  Hanson could not establish special duty owed to him or that injuries were from institution's agents.


Implications: Institutions owe no duty of care to a student injured unless a special relationships can be established or negligence on the part of the institution's agents.  No special relationship = not recruited by institution (420)

Term
Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991)
Definition

 Issue: Furek was a sophomore fraternity pledge at University of Delaware who received significant burns as result of hazing activities, permanently scarring him, and causing him to withdraw and forfeit a full football scholarship.  Fraternity had charter revoked by national organization and UD.


Principals: Furek (victim) against campus charter and national fraternity organization, UD, and Joseph Donchez


Decision: A jury awarded $30,000, apportioned 93% to UD, 7% to Donchez.  Delaware SP ruled that national fraternity was not liable, that UD was liable for breach of duty of supervision and protection; the university's failure to protect did not rise to the level that would have  justified an award of punitive damages (any new trial would thus be limited to issue of liability), and compensatory damages would be shared by the university and Donchez.  


Implications: Campuses must develop policies against hazing to protect students against dangers of injury or death and to avoid liability for damages resulting from negligence. A university is particularly vulnerable if officials have prior knowledge of hazing and fail to take precautionary measures that go beyond the distribution of disciplinary consequences for hazing infractions.  

 

Term
Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3rd Cir. 1993)
Definition

Issue: Kleinknecht suffered cardiac arrest and subsequently died during off-season practice.  Plaintiffs claimed negligence was cause of death, insitution did not provide prompt treatment, nor had a written plan for medical emergencies, and neglected to insure coaches were CPR trained or had proper communication devices at practice (could have saved athlete).


Principals: Kleinknecht's parents and Gettysburg College


Decision: A special relationship existed between athlete and institution based on athlete's recruitment and subsequent participation in scheduled, sponsored, and supervised event for which the athlete was subject to control and supervision (owed a duty of care).  Also found that danger of serious injury was foreseeable and owed duty of care to take precautions against risks of injury.


Implications: Instition is not liable for actions of athletes in heat of competition, but still must provide reasonably safe conditions for participation.  Futhermore, special relationship and duty to care is applicable when school exercises greater degree of control over student-athletes, especially to foresee potential risks and to take preventative action.

Term
Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1993)
Definition

Issue: Nero was a summer student who was assaulted by fellow student (who was previously indicted for sexual assault; pending from previous semester) in basement of residence hall.


Principals: Nero (victim), KSU


Decision: Nero won; assault was foreseeable and KSU should have taken steps to assure safety of students in residence halls; duty to protect Nero, as a business invitee, who had a right to safety and liberty; proximate cause should have been foreseeable.


Implications: Difficult balance between right to due process (for perpetrator) and rights to safety/liberty.  Also poses interesting issue with public/private dichotomy (public university's hand tied by due process, where private school could have acted more swiftly).  Some students are business invitees, which affords increased entitlement to reasonable duty of care.

Term
Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 2000 WL 293217 (S.Ct.)
Definition

Issue: Students objected to the mandatory fee because it was used to support RSOs engaging in political or ideological speech.


Decision: SCOTUS declared that mandatory activity fee was constitutional as long as the mechanism to determine what RSOs received funding was viewpoint neutral.


Implications: Fee is not for university-sponsored speech nor was it responsible for content of any of the RSOs speech; sole purpose of the activity was to facilitate "fee and open exchange of ideas by, and among, its students" (a legitimate government interest). Viewpoint neutrality standard ensures that universities protect their students' First Amendment interests; justifies both the institution of a mandatory fee and the disbursement of funds.  May also enact viewpoint neutral restrictions on RSOs off-campus expenditures.  Decision akin to objecting to unpopular ideas taught by faculty members funded through tuition dollars.

 

Term
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d. 401 (4th Cir. 2000)
Definition

Issue: Law prohibited state agency employees use of state computers to view/download/store sexually explicit content, except as may be used for approved research projects.  Faculty filed suit under the the auspices of academic freedom (for research purposes) and First Amendment right of free expression.


Principals: Plaintiffs were six professors from various state institutions filed against Gilmore (who was...)


Decision: SCOTUS denied certiorari (affirmed 4th Cir. ruling); en banc ruling upheld constitutionality of law prohibiting  use of state owned computers to download sexually explicit internet sites.


Implications: Academic freedom belongs to the university not individual faculty members or students. Law did not regulate employee speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, was not entitled to First Amendment protection. Court used Pickering Balance (rights of employees vs. rights of employers) and found speech did not touch on matters of public concern (therefore not protectable), and that public employees' speech had been purchased via salaries (could not comment as private citizens).  First Amendment rights of academic freedom, which go beyond that given by First Amendment, accrued to the university not the individual professors.

Term
Stanton v. University of Maine System, 773 A. 2d 1045 (Me. 2001)
Definition

Issue: Stanton was a high school student attending a summer athletic camp on the campus of the University of Southern Maine, when she was sexually assaulted by an acquaintance she met at a campus fraternity party in the dorm room she was occupying.  She and parents filed suit alleging failure of duty to warn, breach of implied contract, and foreseeable assault.


Principals: Stanton (high school student, camp attendee) and University of Southern Maine


Decision: Stanton was a business invitee, and entitled to protection from foreseeable danger. University's failure to do these things were proximate cause of her injury and institution was therefore liable.


Implications: Dealt with issue of business invitee (part of the framework for deciding if an institution has provided protection to which they were entitled under policy and law); one who is invited to the premises for transacting business and to whom a duty of care is owed (a student attending a college or university has the legal status of a business invitee). Also, institution is liable if negligent action is proven to be proximate cause of injury.


Term
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 (Pottawatomie) v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822)
Definition

Issue: OK school district required all middle and high school students participating in extracurricular activities consent to a drug-testing program (urinalysis).


Decision: Court upheld, reasoning that students  who participate in extracurricular activities (including interscholastic athletics) voluntarily subject themselves to intrusions that lessen any expectation of privacy that might apply to the whole student body.


Implications: Urinalysis is an insubstantial interference with privacy and the school district's interest is sufficient even if there is evidence of a pervasive drug problem at the school or among students participating in extracurricular programs. (Representatives of the school as well as)...because of the pernicious effect of substance abuse on the instructional process and extracurricular participation.

Term
Healy v. James
Definition
Issue: Central Connecticut State College wanted to refuse chartering of "Students for a Democratic Society"

Decision: refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional. The denial of official recognition was found to violate the First Amendment.

Implications: Administrators must take into consideration First Amendment rights
Term
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
Definition
Decision: Court ruled that state supported institutions had the right to notice and a hearing prior to an disciplinary action that might result in dismissal. Publicly funded higher education is an entitlement protected by due process of law.

Implications: the death knell of in loco parentis

private college students rely more heavily on a contractual analysis
Term
Widmar v. Vincent
Definition
Issue: The University of Missouri at Kansas City did not allow religious student groups to use its facilities because of the Establishment Clause. A student group sued for violation of First Amendment rights.

Decision: The court ruled in favor of the student organization, stating that access to facilities is an equal right to all student organizations.

Implications: Greater access to public facilities by religious organizations. The state was not assumed to be in support of all messages that were communicated in their facilities.
Term
Commonwealth v. Carr
Definition
Issue: Boston College Police Department was told by RA that the student had a gun in his dorm. Three officers arrived, discovering that the gun was fake. But the officers wanted to search so they asked the students to sign a consent to search, which they did not. (They only signed Miranda waiver). Officers discovered marijuana and other drugs in the dorm. Students were charged guilty for drug trafficking. Students filed to suppress evidence because it was found without consent to search.

Decision: Ruling overturned in favor of students. Officers must receive free and voluntary consent to search without a warrant.

Implications: Presence of armed officers requires search warrant, and consent cannot be described as free and voluntary in such situations
Term
Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University
Definition
Issue: Medlock was a student at Indiana University and lived in the on campus dorms. A condition of being allowed to live there was that he was required to comply with health and safety inspections. Medlock had been given a week's notice and had been notified over the intercom speaker that inspections would be taking place. Upon inspection, a plastic tube of controlled substances was found in plain sight, and then later the police found other controlled substances.

Decision: Court affirmed Medlock's suspension. It was a frivolous case.

Implications: Dormitory workers do not need a warrant to search dormitories. It also shows the evolving views about drug abuse in colleges because IU responded with leniency and not only let Medlock come back the following year, but also gave him and on-campus job
Supporting users have an ad free experience!