Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffcivil rightsdue process
plaintiffdamageshearingdue process

Related Cases

Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312
View Case »
Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605
View Case »
Prather v. Upjohn Co., 797 F.2d 923, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,107
View Case »
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 462 F.Supp.2d 1060
View Case »
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Poats v. Givan, 651 F.2d 495

Facts

The plaintiff is a law school graduate who failed the Indiana bar examination on four occasions. He filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) against the Indiana Supreme Court justices and the State Board of Law Examiners, claiming he was denied due process and equal protection by not being allowed to take the bar exam a fifth time. The district court dismissed his complaint, stating it failed to state a claim for relief.

The plaintiff is a law school graduate who has failed the Indiana bar examination on four different occasions. He brought this action under 42 U.S.C. ss 1983 and 1985(3) against the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court and the members of the State Board of Law Examiners, for damages and for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Issue

Whether the Indiana Supreme Court's rule limiting the number of bar examinations an applicant may take to four is constitutional and whether the plaintiff was denied due process.

The plaintiff contends, as summarized in his complaint, as follows: … (T)he plaintiff has been denied his right to “due process” as guaranteed pursuant to the Fifth (5th) and Fourteenth (14th) Amendments by not being allowed a hearing in regards to taking the Indiana Bar Examination a fifth (5th) time, that by not being allowed to sit for the February 1980, and future Indiana Bar Examinations if necessary, violates equal protection under the laws as guaranteed pursuant to the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment ….

Rule

The court applied the principle that a state can impose qualifications for bar admission that have a rational connection to an applicant's fitness to practice law, and that due process is satisfied when an applicant has the opportunity for review after failing an examination.

A state can require high standards of qualification, such as proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiff had been allowed to take the bar exam and three re-examinations, each with the opportunity for review by the Indiana Supreme Court, which satisfied the due process requirements. The court also noted that the limit of four attempts was a rational policy to ensure a competent bar, as it is reasonable for a state to require high standards of qualification for bar admission.

The applicant has been allowed to take the examination and three re-examinations, each with the opportunity for review by the Indiana Supreme Court. In our view, this adequately satisfies due process requirements for a hearing.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's action, holding that the rule limiting the number of bar examinations to four is constitutional.

We hold that the Indiana Supreme Court rule limiting the number of bar examinations which an applicant may take to four is constitutional.

Who won?

The Indiana Supreme Court and the State Board of Law Examiners prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated and that the examination limit was a valid exercise of state authority.

The court concluded that denial of a fourth examination was valid under the due process and equal protection clauses as a rational policy adopted in the exercise of the state's recognized authority to assure a competent bar.

You must be