United States v. De Cavalcante

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting student’s claim that university was not contractually entitled to change academic degree requirements subsequent to plaintiffs enrollment, but referencing “the student’s contract with the university upon matriculation” in the course of its analysis
• “[Plaintiff’s] claim of a binding, absolute unchangeable contract is particularly anomalous in the context of ... post graduate level work”
• for dismissal grounded in disciplinary, rather than academic, reasons, courts appropriately may engage in more thorough due process analysis
• “[W]e know of no case which holds that colleges and universities are subject to the supervision or review of the courts in the uniform application of their academic standards.”
• “[W]e know of no case which holds that colleges and universities are subject to the supervision or review of the courts in the uniform application of their academic standards.”
• “[i]mplicit in the student’s contract * * * is the student’s agreement to comply with the university’s rules and regulations, which the university clearly is entitled to modify so as to properly exercise its educational responsibility”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).