Case Brief Nash V. Auburn
NASH v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY
FACTS:
Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams, which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge, faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the university, they appealed with dean and then later the president of Auburn, who both agreed with the hearings judgment. The students then filed suit, arguing that Auburn suspended them based on constitutionally inadequate procedures that violated their rights under the due process clause. The district court entered judgment for Auburn, the students then appealed and the courts of appeals agreed with the district court decision.
ISSUE:
Was Auburn Universities hearing have constitutionally inadequate procedures which violated appellants' rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment? Was the decision to suspend them was made without sufficient evidentiary support, in violation of their substantive due process rights under the fourteenth amendment? Did Auburn University Hearing provide rudimentary protections and fairness by proving adequate due process protections to their students and a fair hearing?
RULE:
That an administrative agency provide a fair tribunal by, Procedural Due Process the legal requirement that an agency of the state must respect all of the legal rights that is owed to a person apart of that agency. Substantive Due Process established course for an administrative agency designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual apart of the agency.
ANALYSIS:
The court stated that the disciplinary hearing provided them with proper notice of their violation was and sufficient amount of time to prepare their case to an
FACTS:
Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams, which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge, faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the university, they appealed with dean and then later the president of Auburn, who both agreed with the hearings judgment. The students then filed suit, arguing that Auburn suspended them based on constitutionally inadequate procedures that violated their rights under the due process clause. The district court entered judgment for Auburn, the students then appealed and the courts of appeals agreed with the district court decision.
ISSUE:
Was Auburn Universities hearing have constitutionally inadequate procedures which violated appellants' rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment? Was the decision to suspend them was made without sufficient evidentiary support, in violation of their substantive due process rights under the fourteenth amendment? Did Auburn University Hearing provide rudimentary protections and fairness by proving adequate due process protections to their students and a fair hearing?
RULE:
That an administrative agency provide a fair tribunal by, Procedural Due Process the legal requirement that an agency of the state must respect all of the legal rights that is owed to a person apart of that agency. Substantive Due Process established course for an administrative agency designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual apart of the agency.
ANALYSIS:
The court stated that the disciplinary hearing provided them with proper notice of their violation was and sufficient amount of time to prepare their case to an