Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

Why did the Respondent's attorney object to my argument that a

I am fighting with my university, so they will correct mistakes in my academic record, which they say I should have called to their attention before I graduated. (This is a public university.) They allege a compelling state interest in not fixing the mistakes because they have a lot of students to graduate, and blah blah blah. I pointed out in my opening brief (in this writ of ordinary mandate proceeding) that there is a ''special relationship'' shared between students like me and the university, because we are so totally dependent upon them to get our grades and GPA right. (There is case law on such a ''special relationship'' situation: Clemente v. State of Calif. [1980] 101 Cal.App.3d 374) Why would the attorney for the college ''object'' to that argument of mine? Why not just argue against my argument in their opposition brief? Is what they did just a lazy way of addressing that argument of mine without going to the trouble of making a real written argument? That is, they are willing to take the risk that the court will not deem that a ''special relationship'' exists....? (Of course, if the court DOES agree a special relationship exists, why bother to argue that one doesn't, right?) What can you tell me?

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Administrative Law questions and answers in California

Looking for something else?