Sheila J. Bell v. Ohio State University

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that conclusory or unsupported allegations do not show a genuine issue for trial
• explaining that, to defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence to support its position and that mere “scintilla of evidence” is insufficient
• noting that property interests protected by procedural due process “may be substantively modified or abolished by the legislature,” while those protected by substantive due process “the legislature may not infringe unless supported by sufficiently important state interests”
• explaining that dismissed student alleging discrimination must provide evidence that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse action at the hands of the defendants in her pursuit of her education; (3
• holding contention of “arbitrary or capricious” employment decision insufficient to establish a deprivation of substantive due process, because if that were the rule, then any procedural irregularity in government action could qualify as a substantive due process violation
• finding a mere “scintilla of evidence” is insufficient to defeat an otherwise proper summary judgment motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).