South Texas College of Law v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

40 S.W.3d 130 (2000)

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

South Texas College of Law v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Texas Court of Appeals
40 S.W.3d 130 (2000)

Facts

The South Texas College of Law (South Texas) (plaintiff) was a private freestanding law school. Texas A&M (A&M) was a public university offering various degree programs. South Texas entered into an exclusive affiliation agreement with A&M. The agreement stated, among other things, that (1) A&M would provide office space and support staff to South Texas personnel; (2) the South Texas students, staff, and alums would be assimilated into A&M culture and affairs; (3) the two entities would work together to develop joint and combined degree programs; (4) A&M would have input into the hiring of South Texas administration and personnel; (5) A&M would have representatives on the South Texas Board of Directors and other important committees; and (6) the agreement would broaden A&M’s academic offerings. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (the board) asserted that the agreement could not go into effect until the board approved a modification to A&M’s mission to include the issuance of law degrees. A&M did not have prior approval to offer law degrees. Under Texas law, the board had the exclusive authority to approve the role and mission of each public institution of higher education. No public university could modify its role or mission without board approval. The board’s authority included the authority to approve and disapprove of degree programs. No public university could offer a degree program not approved by the board. South Texas filed a lawsuit against the board, seeking a declaratory judgment that A&M did not require approval from the board to enter into the agreement with South Texas. A&M intervened. The board counterclaimed, arguing that the agreement violated state law, the state constitution, and the public policy of the state of Texas. The trial court ruled in favor of the board, ruling that the agreement exceeded A&M’s authority and violated public policy. South Texas and A&M appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Aboussie, C.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