Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Salve Regina College v. Russell

United States Supreme Court
499 U.S. 225


Sharon Russell (plaintiff) began a nursing program at Salve Regina College (College) (defendant) in 1982. Due to the College’s concern that Russell’s obesity would interfere with her ability to complete the nursing program, Russell signed a contract with the College in which she agreed to lose weight in order to continue in the nursing program. Russell failed to meet the requirements of the contract and withdrew from the program. Russell subsequently sued the College, alleging a breach of its implied agreement to educate her. The College moved for a directed verdict. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the motion on the grounds that there was a factual issue as to whether Russell had substantially performed under her agreement with the College. The College renewed its motion after trial. The College argued that the doctrine of substantial performance did not apply in the academic context and that, since Russell had admitted she had not fulfilled all the terms of the contract, the College was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied the motion. The district court determined that although the doctrine of substantial performance had previously been limited to construction contracts, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island would extend the doctrine of substantial performance to Russell’s case. The district court judge based his conclusion on his prior experience as a Rhode Island state court trial judge. The jury was instructed to apply the doctrine of substantial performance. The jury found in favor of Russell, and the College appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, finding that it was required to defer to interpretations of state law made by district court judges sitting in that state. The College petitioned for certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, 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 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial