Tigrett v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

290 F.3d 620 (2002)

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

Tigrett v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
290 F.3d 620 (2002)

Facts

Harrison Tigrett and Bradley Kintz (plaintiffs) were students at the University of Virginia. In the fall of 1997, Tigrett, Kintz, and three of their fraternity brothers engaged in an altercation with another student, Alexander Kory, on the university campus. Tigrett and Kintz assaulted Kory, leaving Kory with significant injuries to his face. Tigrett and Kintz eventually pleaded nolo contendere to disorderly conduct in state criminal court. Kory filed a disciplinary complaint against Tigrett and Kintz with the university, alleging that Tigrett and Kintz violated the university’s student-conduct policies. The complaint was investigated by the University Judiciary Committee (UJC) according to university procedures. The UJC scheduled a trial for Tigrett and Kintz. Due to perceived irregularities, Tigrett and Kintz did not attend the trial. The UJC held a trial in the students’ absence and voted to expel Tigrett and Kintz. The UJC’s decision was subject to review by Vice President for Student Affairs William Harmon. Harmon refused to accept the expulsion recommendation due to irregularities. Harmon appointed a five-member fact-finding panel to conduct a second trial. After a 13-hour trial in which Tigrett and Kintz were allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, the panel concluded that Tigrett and Kintz were guilty of violating the student-conduct policy. University President John Casteen adopted the panel’s findings. Casteen imposed the panel’s recommended sanction for Kintz but a more severe sanction for Tigrett. Tigrett and Kintz both filed a lawsuit against university officials (defendants). The district court partially granted summary judgment in favor of the university officials, and Tigrett and Kintz appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (King, 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