20 Cited authorities

In re Murchison
349 U.S. 133 (1955) Cited 2,115 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants
Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.
446 U.S. 238 (1980) Cited 566 times
Holding an impartial and disinterested tribunal is required in adjudicative proceedings
Meiri v. Dacon
759 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 1,772 times
Holding that medical resident's negative performance evaluations were a valid non-discriminatory reason for termination even where some reviews were positive and reflected good clinical skills and a willingness to learn
Tumey v. Ohio
273 U.S. 510 (1927) Cited 2,138 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause requires recusal when a judge has a "direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in a case
Yusuf v. Vassar College
35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 659 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff can allege multiple theories for his or her claim, but under any theory "wholly conclusory allegations [will not] suffice for purposes of Rule 12(b)"
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) Cited 440 times
Holding that students had a property interest in their continued enrollment at a "public institution of higher learning"
Deebs v. Alstom Transp
346 F. App'x 654 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 85 times
Holding that, if the only evidence cited is self-serving testimony and no attempt has been made to square that testimony with "the hard evidence adduced during discovery," such testimony is insufficient to defeat summary judgment
Tedeschi v. Wagner College
49 N.Y.2d 652 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 188 times
Holding that "when a university has adopted a rule or guideline establishing the procedure to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion that procedure must be substantially observed"
Osteen v. Henley
13 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 122 times
Holding that while a student may have a right to consult with counsel, that right does not extend to active participation by counsel in hearing, which would create a trial-type proceeding
Doe v. University of South
687 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) Cited 75 times
Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a viable promissory estoppel claim where they did not plead "facts to support a finding that the [defendant's] conduct is the equivalent to fraud"

Yu v. Vassar College

20 Cited authorities

Holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants

Holding an impartial and disinterested tribunal is required in adjudicative proceedings

Holding that medical resident's negative performance evaluations were a valid non-discriminatory reason for termination even where some reviews were positive and reflected good clinical skills and a willingness to learn

Holding that the Due Process Clause requires recusal when a judge has a "direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in a case

Holding that a plaintiff can allege multiple theories for his or her claim, but under any theory "wholly conclusory allegations [will not] suffice for purposes of Rule 12(b)"

Holding that students had a property interest in their continued enrollment at a "public institution of higher learning"

Holding that, if the only evidence cited is self-serving testimony and no attempt has been made to square that testimony with "the hard evidence adduced during discovery," such testimony is insufficient to defeat summary judgment

Holding that "when a university has adopted a rule or guideline establishing the procedure to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion that procedure must be substantially observed"

Holding that while a student may have a right to consult with counsel, that right does not extend to active participation by counsel in hearing, which would create a trial-type proceeding

Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a viable promissory estoppel claim where they did not plead "facts to support a finding that the [defendant's] conduct is the equivalent to fraud"