Case Name: Thomas E. LISTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas H. HOOVER, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-05-16
Citations: 706 F.2d 796
Docket Number: No. 82-1595
Parties: Thomas E. LISTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas H. HOOVER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 706
Pages: 796–805

Head Matter:
Thomas E. LISTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas H. HOOVER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 82-1595.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Sept. 22, 1982.
Decided May 16, 1983.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 18, 1983.
Swygert, Senior Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
Steven J. Kirschner, Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison, Wis., for plaintiffs-appellants.
LeRoy L. Dalton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Madison, Wis., for defendants-appellees.
Before ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge, SWYGERT,' Senior Circuit Judge, and CAMPBELL,. Senior District Judge.
The Honorable William J. Campbell, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.

Opinion:
WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in a case challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's procedures for determining the residency of individuals for tuition purposes at state universities. This case has been the subject of a state action, Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis.2d 282, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976); and two federal appeals, Lister v. Lucey, 575 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir.), cert. den. 439 U.S. 865, 99 S.Ct. 190, 58 L.Ed.2d 175 (1978); Lister v. Hoover, 655 F.2d 123 (7th Cir.1981). Based on the remand on the last appeal, the only issue before the district court was whether the Committee of Appeals at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) was required by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to give written reasons for its denial of a student's request to be classified as a state resident for tuition purposes. Upon cross motions for summary judgment, the district court answered the question in the negative and the plaintiffs appealed to this Court. We conclude that the district judge properly analyzed the issue raised and hereby affirm and adopt its opinion which is reprinted in the Appendix to this opinion.