Waliga v. Board of Trustees of Kent State University
Ohio Supreme Court
488 N.E.2d 850 (1986)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
George Waliga and Kent Taylor (the Kent State alums) (plaintiffs) received bachelor of arts degrees from Kent State University (Kent State) (defendants). Kent State considered revoking the Kent State alums’ degrees more than 10 years later after determining that, based on discrepancies in their official academic records, they did not meet all of the substantive degree requirements. Prior to making a decision, Kent State informed the Kent State alums that it would hold a hearing, at which they could present evidence but not be represented by counsel. Following the hearing, which the Kent State alums did not attend, the committee recommended that their degrees be revoked. Before Kent State made a decision, the Kent State alums filed a request for a temporary injunction, arguing that Kent State did not have the authority to revoke degrees more than 10 years after awarding them. The matter proceeded to a hearing for declaratory judgment, and a trial court held that Kent State did not have the authority to revoke degrees after issuing them. A court of appeals affirmed. Kent State appealed, arguing that it had the authority to revoke degrees for cause if due process was afforded to the degree holders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wise, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.