In the supreme court considered that the student had been informed of the faculty's dissatisfaction with her clinical performance, and the student knew that unless she made significant improvement in this area, she would be dismissed from the program. the court held that the decision to dismiss the student from medical school was based on a careful and deliberate evaluation by the faculty, and thus the student's dismissal was not a violation of her constitutional rights. a. board of curators of the university of missouri v. horowitzb. shuffer v. trustees of california state universities and collegesc. jablonski v. the united statesd. hedlund v. superior court

a. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz

Explanation:

In effect, several faculty members from the university had expressed their unconformity with Charlotte´s Horowitz clinical performance. And after Council evaluation, a faculty and student body, determined that she proceed to her final year but only under probation. The following year that same council observed the students progress was not up to par and left the final decision in hands of a faculty and Dean only council which dismissed Horowitz. She then sued and argued that her dismissal from the university program violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

Finally, as the example states, the court dictated that the decision to dismiss the student had not been a violation of her constitutional rights.

answer; allows decision to stand;

answer; bill of rights;