Bleicher v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

604 N.E.2d 783, 78 Ohio App. 3d 302 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bleicher v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

Ohio Court of Appeals
604 N.E.2d 783, 78 Ohio App. 3d 302 (1992)

Facts

Raymond Bleicher (plaintiff) was a student at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (defendant). During the spring of 1984, Bleicher asked to be excused from the final examination in his pharmacology class and sought the opportunity to take a makeup final examination. Bleicher was notified that a makeup exam was not available, but Bleicher and the college agreed that Bleicher could substitute his score from the pharmacology subsection on his National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) examination for Bleicher’s final examination score in the pharmacology course. A remedial pharmacology course was offered in the summer of 1984, but Bleicher did not enroll in the remedial course. Bleicher took the NBME examination in June of 1984 and received his score the following month. Bleicher’s score on the pharmacology subsection of the NBME was not sufficient for Bleicher to pass the pharmacology course. Even though Bleicher did not enroll in the remedial pharmacology course, the college allowed Bleicher to take the midterm and final examination in the remedial course. Bleicher was provided four hours to take both exams, whereas the students enrolled in the remedial course had already taken the midterm exam and were provided four hours to take the final exam only. Bleicher did not score high enough on the two exams to pass the remedial course. Because Bleicher had failed pharmacology, he was dismissed from the college. Bleicher filed a lawsuit against the college, alleging a breach of contract for failure to abide by the college’s guidelines. The trial court ruled in favor of the college, and Bleicher appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership