Than v. University of Texas Medical School at Houston
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
188 F.3d 633 (1999)
Facts
Than (plaintiff) was a third-year medical student at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston (medical school) (defendant). During an exam, two proctors noticed Than repeatedly looking at a neighboring student’s answer. The two exams contained identical answers to the majority of all incorrect answers. A hearing was held, and Than was expelled for academic dishonesty. Than first filed a lawsuit in state court, and the Texas Supreme Court reversed the expulsion based on procedural violations during the first hearing and ordered a new hearing. During the second hearing, Than received notice of the hearing, and the hearing officer was an impartial professor at another medical school. Than was represented by counsel and was allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses and present documentary evidence. The two proctors testified at the hearing, as well as a testing expert. Than was again expelled, and the hearing officer issued a thorough written opinion detailing his findings. After the second hearing, Than filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the medical school and its administrators, alleging that his procedural due-process rights had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment to the medical school and its administrators. Than appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Politz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
