Mark D. Hall v. University of Minnesota
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
530 F. Supp. 104 (1982)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Mark D. Hall (plaintiff) was a student and varsity basketball player at the University of Minnesota (Minnesota) (defendant). Hall was enrolled in a non-baccalaureate-degree program at Minnesota’s main campus. After completing 90 credits, Hall needed to be accepted into a degree program to maintain his athletic eligibility. Hall applied to the University without Walls (UWW), a college within the Minnesota system, but his application was denied. Under academic rules promulgated by the Big Ten Conference (Big Ten), Hall was eligible based on his grade point average and accumulated credits alone, but he needed to be enrolled in a degree program. Hall was the only student athlete who met Big Ten academic standards but was refused admission into a degree program. According to Hall, he was only interested in maximizing his potential to play professionally, not in attaining a degree. Hall would have had to sit out a full season if he transferred to another school. Based on Hall’s application, UWW’s admissions committee approved his application, but in an unprecedented move, the directors of the program intervened to ensure that his application was rejected. The directors made this decision after receiving information from Minnesota’s dean that raised concerns about Hall’s record. These concerns included that (1) Hall had earned A’s in courses he was not enrolled in; (2) Hall’s work needed to be monitored heavily; (3) Hall turned in work done by others and passed it off as his own; and (4) every grade of withdrawal on Hall’s transcript was originally an F. Hall’s case was contrary to UWW’s policy, expressly laid out in a pamphlet it distributed, that information presented in an application would determine whether a candidate was accepted and that UWW’s admissions committee would determine whether an application was approved. Hall sought an injunction ordering Minnesota to admit him, arguing that he was deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lord, C.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.