Arwen Bird v. Lewis & Clark College Thomas Darrow, Phd Larry A. Meyers, Arwen Bird v. Lewis & Clark College Thomas Darrow, Phd Larry A. Meyers

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions “based in part on federal regulations” were properly omitted because “the proposed instructions overall misstate the law”
• explaining that, to the extent that a student’s grades impacted her chances of future em- ployment or admission to graduate school, graduation didn’t moot her claims
• finding standing for injunctive relief because plaintiff alleged “a plausible causal connection between her academic performance . . . and the alleged discrimination” (emphasis added)
• “The district court 7 committed no error in rejecting the proffered instructions” because “the proposed 8 instructions overall misstate the law”
• appeals court does not consider an issue not raised below
• appeals court does not consider an issue not raised below

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).