Scheuer v. Creighton University

260 N.W.2d 595 (1977)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Scheuer v. Creighton University

Nebraska Supreme Court
260 N.W.2d 595 (1977)


Edwin Scheuer (plaintiff) was a tenured professor in the School of Pharmacy (the pharmacy school) at Creighton University (Creighton) (defendant), a private university in Nebraska. The pharmacy school, which was one of four schools in the Health Sciences Division at Creighton, had its own dean and its own budget. In 1975 Scheuer was informed that he was being terminated for financial reasons. The pharmacy school had operated at a deficit since 1971. In 1975 the vice president for the Health Sciences Division learned that it was facing a large reduction in funds and would have to operate at a $900,000 deficit for the upcoming school year, $160,000 of which was attributable to the pharmacy school, which was receiving less federal funding because of declining enrollment. The pharmacy school was moving into a new building, which was expected to create $100,000 in additional expenses. After cutting nonsalary expenses and terminating nonfaculty positions, the pharmacy school and Health Sciences Division determined that they would have to terminate four tenured faculty members. Scheuer was selected because the only class he taught, Medicinal Chemistry, could be taught by another faculty member with more seniority. The Creighton University Handbook (the handbook) provided that tenured faculty could only be terminated for cause. Financial exigency was listed as one example of cause. Scheuer brought a breach-of-contract claim against Creighton. A district court ruled for Creighton, finding that, under the handbook, the financial-exigency condition is met when a financial exigency exists within a department or program. Scheuer appealed, arguing that his contract required a showing that Creighton, not just the pharmacy school, was experiencing a financial exigency. On appeal, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) filed an amicus brief supporting Scheuer and pointing to its recent adoption of its 1976 regulations, which defined financial exigency as an imminent financial crisis that threatened the survival of the institution as a whole. These regulations were not in effect at the time of Scheuer’s contract.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Spencer, 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 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 733,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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