Olsson v. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York

402 N.E.2d 1150, 49 N.Y.2d 408 (1980)

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

Olsson v. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals
402 N.E.2d 1150, 49 N.Y.2d 408 (1980)

Facts

Eugene Olsson (plaintiff) was a student at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice within the City University of New York. Olsson, who was seeking a master’s degree, had the option of taking a final comprehensive examination to demonstrate Olsson’s proficiency instead of completing a master’s thesis. Olsson enrolled in a review course to prepare for the examination. To pass the examination, students had to reach an average score of 2.8 and a three or higher on four out of five exam questions. During the review course, a professor misspoke, leading Olsson to believe that Olsson only had to score a three or higher on three out of five exam questions. Relying on this misunderstanding, Olsson budgeted his time in such a way as to maximize Olsson’s chances of scoring a three on only three of the exam questions. Olsson failed the examination because, although his average score exceeded 2.8, Olsson only scored a three on three of the five exam questions. Twenty-three of the 35 students in Olsson’s review course passed the examination. Olsson asked the college’s academic appeals committee to reconsider his grade. Olsson argued that had the professor not misspoken, Olsson would have known he needed to score a three on four of the five exam questions and would have budgeted his time differently to do so. The academic appeals committee refused to grant Olsson a passing score but offered to expunge his failing score and allow Olsson to take the exam again. Olsson refused and filed a lawsuit against the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York (defendant), arguing that because Olsson relied on the misrepresentations of a professor, the college should be estopped from denying him a master’s degree based on Olsson’s examination score. The trial court agreed and ordered the college to award a master’s degree to Olsson. The college appealed. The appellate court affirmed, and the college appealed once again.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gabrielli, 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