Moreno v. University of Maryland
Citation | 420 F. Supp. 541 |
Decision Date | 13 July 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. M-75-691. |
Parties | Juan Carlos MORENO et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and Dr. Wilson H. Elkins, President, University of Maryland, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alfred L. Scanlan and R. James Woolsey, Bethesda, Md., for plaintiffs.
David H. Feldman and Jack T. Roach, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
This is a purported class action suit in which the named plaintiffs, Juan Carlos Moreno, Juan Pablo Otero, and Clare B. Hogg, seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, the University of Maryland and Dr. Wilson H. Elkins, its president. Both sides have filed motions for summary judgment. The named plaintiffs are currently students at the University of Maryland, College Park campus, who reside in the State of Maryland with their parents, upon whom they are financially dependent. Plaintiffs' fathers all hold non-immigrant alien visas issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(15)(G)(iv)1 G-4 visas. As employees of certain international organizations created under international agreements to which the United States is a party, the plaintiffs' fathers are exempted from state and federal taxes on salaries paid by these organizations.2
Under policies adopted by the Board of Regents of the University of Maryland effective for any term of the University beginning on or after January 1, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the "In-State Policy"), students are divided into two classes, i. e., "in-state" or resident on the one hand and "out-of-state" or non-resident on the other, for purposes of determining admission, tuition rates, and charge differentials. Under this policy "out-of-state" undergraduate students are required to pay $1,260 more per year for tuition than "resident" students, as well as $100 more per year for a room. "Out-of-state" graduate students are charged $30 more per credit hour than "in-state" students.
The relevant sections of the "In-State-Policy" are as follows:
There are eight criteria which under the "In-State-Policy" "the University shall take into consideration, but shall not be limited to . . ." in determining whether Maryland domicile has been established. These criteria, applied to the individual upon whom the determination of domicile depends, are whether the individual:
The University determined that the three named plaintiffs were not entitled to "in-state" status. The determination was predicated upon a conclusion that the parent on whom each was financially dependent could not be domiciled in Maryland because each was in the country on a G-4 visa. Without success, all three plaintiffs availed themselves of the three-step appellate process provided by the University to students dissatisfied with their residence classification.3
The pertinent facts with respect to each of the individual plaintiffs are alleged as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bickley v. University of Maryland
...City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). See Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F.Supp. 541, 549-50 and n. 7 (D.Md.1976), aff'd sub nom. Moreno v. Elkins, 556 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1977), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Toll v. Moreno,......
-
Jacobs v. College of William and Mary
..."alter ego" for purposes of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and under the Eleventh Amendment); Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F.Supp. 541, 549 (D.Md.1976), aff'd sub nom., Moreno v. Elkins, 556 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1977), vacated on other grounds, Toll v. Moreno, 441 U.......
-
Elkins v. Moreno
...in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F.Supp. 541 (Md.1976), affirmance order, 556 F.2d 573 (CA4 1977). We granted certiorari to consider whether this decision was in conflict with Wei......
-
Toll v. Moreno
...Policy" amounts to a constitutionally impermissible irrebuttable presumption which is not universally true. Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F.Supp. 541, 559-560 (D.Md.1976). 5 The court then ordered the defendant President to allow the named plaintiffs, and others of the class, the op......