Hysaw v. Washburn University of Topeka
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
690 F. Supp. 940 (1987)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Several Black football players, including Vernon Hysaw (the players) (plaintiffs) attended Washburn University of Topeka (Washburn) (defendant) and received athletic scholarships for the 1986–1987 school year. Each player signed a written financial-aid agreement with Washburn, which guaranteed the payment of scholarship funds but made no promise regarding the player’s right to participate in athletic activities. After a series of disputes with the coaching staff, the players boycotted team practices. Washburn responded by removing the players from the team. Nevertheless, each player still received full payment of the promised scholarship funds. The players brought suit against Washburn, alleging that their removal from the team violated their constitutional rights and breached their scholarship contracts. Specifically, the players argued that their scholarship agreements gave them a property interest in the right to play football and that Washburn deprived them of this interest without due process by breaching those contracts. They similarly contended that Washburn infringed on their liberty interest in pursuing a career in college football. Washburn moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saffels, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 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.


