1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 772 F.2d
  5. 772 F.2d 1060 (1985)
 

GALDA v. RUTGERS

No. 84-5498.

772 F.2d 1060 (1985)

Joseph P. GALDA, Paul Ewert, Kristina Farrow Cypel, Thomas H. Odom, Joseph Randall Corman, Lori Keeley, Leslie Beebe, Leonard Scott Kelter, Edward D. Wickham, and Christopher Lepre, Individually, and upon behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants v. RUTGERS, The State University of New Jersey, Dr. Edward J. Bloustein, Individually, and as President of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Dr. Norman Reitman, Individually, and as Chairman of the Board of Governors of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Donald S. MacNaughton, David A. Werblin, Katherine Elkus White, Donald M. Dickerson, Sanford M. Jaffe, Robert Kaplan, Edward Kramer, Linda Stamato, Robert J. Torricelli, Mary White Bell, as members of the Board of Governors of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and Walter K. Gordon, Individually and as Dean of Rutgers Camden College of Arts and Sciences, The New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Intervenor.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided August 28, 1985.

As Amended September 10 and October 11, 1985.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied October 11, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph W. Marshall, III (argued), Myrna P. Field, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants; Bradford S. Smith, Cinnaminson, N.J., of counsel.

Gregory B. Reilly, (argued), Eric Tunis, Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher, Boylan & Meanor, Roseland, N.J., for appellees.

John Cary Sims, (argued), David C. Vladeck, Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D.C., for intervenor New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

Before ADAMS, WEIS, and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied October 11, 1985.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff students contend that a mandatory fee imposed on them by a university for the specific purpose of supporting an independent organization whose aims they oppose is an infringement on their First Amendment rights. The district court held that the funding procedure was permissible because the outside organization contributed to the education...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases