Brands v. Sheldon Community School

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to “evaluate the Board’s [decision] . . . would require the Court to substitute its judgment . . . for that of the [Board]” and recognizing “the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard of review is too narrow to authorize this kind of analysis” (citation omitted)
• assuming without deciding that, if there were a protected interest in participating in interscholastic athletics, the plaintiff’s due process right had not been violated
• “A clear majority of courts addressing this question in the context of interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics has found that athletes have no legitimate entitlement to participate.”
• \A clear majority of courts addressing this question in the context of interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics has found that athletes have no legitimate entitlement to participate.\
• “The plaintiff can show that his right to substantive due process was denied if the Board’s decision was arbitrary or capricious, Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 607 (8th Cir. 1986
• “When a government must follow mandatory laws or regulations which limit its discretion to make a decision in any way or for any reason, those laws or regulations can create a property right which is deprived if those regulations are not followed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).