Glen K. Winnick v. John J. Manning, Jr., Associate Dean of Students, University of Connecticut

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that university’s deviations from procedural guidelines “did not rise to constitutional proportions,” particularly where they were minor deviations and did not affect the fundamental fairness of the hearing
• recognizing that due process procedures vary with context; for example, \[t]he right to cross-examine witnesses generally has not been considered an essential requirement of due process in school disciplinary proceedings\
• holding that university’s deviations from procedural guidelines “did not rise to constitutional proportions,” particularly where they were minor deviations and did not affect the fundamental fairness of the hearing
• noting that “there remain many vexing questions as to what due process requires in school disciplinary hearings”
• finding, pre- Goss , \[plaintiff] had no constitutional right to review or appeal after the disciplinary hearing which satisfied the essential requirements of due process\
• rejecting cross examination because it is not generally considered essential for due process and would serve no useful purpose in the case at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).