Flowers v. Crumbaugh

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that “in the absence of any specific factual allegations pointing to [a gender-motivated] bias on the part of the defendants, it cannot be said that the discriminatory motive explanation is plausible rather than just conceivable”
• explaining limitations on private right of action under Virginia Constitutional provisions
• “[A] protected property interest only exists when some independent source beyond the Fourteenth Amendment creates that interest”
• “Although the due process provision of the Virginia Constitution is self-executing, this has only been held to be true with regard to property deprivation.”
• “A plaintiff must allege (i) a stigmatizing statement (ii) made public by the public university, (iii) in conjunction with his [discipline] from the university, and (iv) that the charge was false.”
• “At its core, plaintiff’s intentional discrimination claim [under Title IX] is that his administrative proceeding resulted in an erroneous outcome as the result of gender- motivated discrimination by the presiding officials.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).