Mangla v. Brown University
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
135 F.3d 80 (1998)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Gaurav Mangla (plaintiff) applied for admission to the graduate school at Brown University (the university) (defendant). In 1993, Mangla was admitted as a probationary special student, meaning that Mangla could take graduate courses but was not yet admitted into a specific degree program. The university’s graduate-school catalog specifically stated that although academic departments had a role in evaluating applications for admission, an official offer of admission could only be made in writing by the dean of the graduate school. Mangla understood that to be fully admitted into the computer-science graduate program, Mangla would have to complete certain coursework successfully. After Mangla completed this coursework, Associate Dean Joan Lusk notified Mangla that he would need a faculty advisor for Mangla’s master’s project. Professor Stanley Zdonik agreed to be Mangla’s faculty advisor for his master’s project and signed a letter agreeing to be Mangla’s advisor. Mangla believed that once he obtained a faculty advisor for his master’s project, Mangla would be fully admitted into the graduate program. In 1995, the university notified Mangla that he would no longer be a probationary student and that Mangla was denied full admission into the graduate program. Mangla filed a lawsuit against the university for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law to the university. Mangla appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)
What to do next…
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.