Conard v. University of Washington

834 P.2d 17, 119 Wash. 2d 519 (1992)

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

Conard v. University of Washington

Washington Supreme Court
834 P.2d 17, 119 Wash. 2d 519 (1992)

Facts

Kevin Conard and Vincent Fudzie (plaintiffs) received athletic scholarships to play football at the University of Washington (defendant). The written scholarship offers, which all players signed, stated that the scholarship would cover three consecutive quarters, starting in the fall of the players’ first year. The offer further stated that scholarships could only be revoked under certain circumstances, including serious misconduct, and that at the end of the three quarters, the university’s Committee on Financial Aid would consider renewing the scholarship upon the recommendation of the head coach and athletic director. During their first two years on the football team, Conard and Fudzie were involved in several criminal and disciplinary incidents, such as stealing, assaulting a student, extortion, property damage, and lack of respect toward team personnel. During Conard and Fudzie’s third year on the football team, the team traveled to California to participate in a bowl game. The night before the game, Conard and Fudzie were arrested for an altercation at a restaurant. Both were removed from the football team and notified that their scholarships would not be renewed for the following year. Both were notified that they could appeal the decision by requesting a hearing before the Athletic Financial Aid Committee. Conard did not request a hearing and was dismissed from the university due to poor academic performance. Fudzie requested a hearing, but the committee affirmed the nonrenewal of his scholarship. Fudzie remained enrolled at the university and received a bachelor’s degree. Conard and Fudzie filed a lawsuit against the university for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the university. Conard and Fudzie appealed. The appellate court confirmed the summary judgment against Conard because he had not requested a hearing and was academically ineligible to remain at the university. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Fudzie, ruling that Fudzie had a constitutionally protected entitlement to renew his scholarship and that his due-process rights had been violated by an inadequate hearing. The university appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dolliver, 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