Brun v. George W. Brown, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fees not tied “to the provision of on-campus services, activities, and programs” could not be recovered under plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract
• holding that “[t]he conversion claim fails because Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege a possessory interest in a specific identifiable fund of money”
• holding that the relationship between a university and its students is contractual in nature and therefore finding an implied-in-fact contract to provide in- person education
• concluding that claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative to breach of contract was sufficiently pled
• holding that determining damages on the facts alleged “does not require [the] court to subjectively value the quality of [the] education” because “the Universities themselves apparently charge different rates for online and in-person instruction”
• recognizing university’s “historic practice” of on-campus education as supporting plausible allegation of implied contract for in- person instruction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).