Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And

Constitutional Issues

Right to access public information under the Texas Public Information Act.Whether student disciplinary records are considered confidential under the TPIA.

Rule Statements

"We hold that the records at issue are not personnel information under section 552.102 of the Government Code."

"We further hold that the records at issue are not excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code."

"Because the university has not demonstrated that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under any provision of the Public Information Act, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment for Brantley."

Remedies

Reversal of the trial court's summary judgment.Rendering judgment in favor of Brantley, ordering the disclosure of the requested student conduct records (subject to any other applicable, unasserted exceptions).

Q: What is Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And about?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on January 9, 2026.

Q: What court decided Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And decided?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And was decided on January 9, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

The citation for Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for this legal opinion?

The full case name is Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity. The case is cited from the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp).

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack case?

The main parties were Jennifer Ferrell Brantley, the plaintiff who appealed the dismissal of her claims, and Melissa Jones-Wommack, the Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, who was the defendant.

Q: What court issued the opinion in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack?

The opinion in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack was issued by the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp).

Q: What was the core dispute in the Brantley v. Jones-Wommack case?

The core dispute centered on Jennifer Ferrell Brantley's allegations that her due process rights were violated and that there was a breach of contract during academic misconduct proceedings against her.

Q: What was the outcome of the appeal in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack?

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Jennifer Ferrell Brantley's claims against Melissa Jones-Wommack. The appellate court found that Brantley did not sufficiently plead facts to show a due process violation and that her breach of contract claim was not viable.

Q: Is Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And published?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a due process violation, as the allegations did not demonstrate a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.; The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the university's student handbook did not create an enforceable contract in the manner alleged by the plaintiff.; The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe for review because she had not exhausted available administrative remedies.; The court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of bias and unfairness in the disciplinary process were conclusory and not supported by specific factual averments.; The court determined that the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was moot due to the completion of the academic term and her graduation..

Q: Why is Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And important?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This case reinforces the high pleading standards required for due process claims against educational institutions and clarifies that university handbooks are generally not treated as strict contracts. Students facing academic misconduct proceedings must demonstrate specific procedural unfairness and exhaust internal appeals before seeking judicial intervention.

Q: What precedent does Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And set?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a due process violation, as the allegations did not demonstrate a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. (2) The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the university's student handbook did not create an enforceable contract in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. (3) The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe for review because she had not exhausted available administrative remedies. (4) The court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of bias and unfairness in the disciplinary process were conclusory and not supported by specific factual averments. (5) The court determined that the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was moot due to the completion of the academic term and her graduation.

Q: What are the key holdings in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

1. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a due process violation, as the allegations did not demonstrate a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. 2. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the university's student handbook did not create an enforceable contract in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. 3. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe for review because she had not exhausted available administrative remedies. 4. The court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of bias and unfairness in the disciplinary process were conclusory and not supported by specific factual averments. 5. The court determined that the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was moot due to the completion of the academic term and her graduation.

Q: What cases are related to Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

Precedent cases cited or related to Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And: Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975); Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. King, 301 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied).

Q: What specific due process rights did Jennifer Ferrell Brantley claim were violated?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley alleged violations of her due process rights in the academic misconduct proceedings. However, the appellate court found that she failed to plead specific facts demonstrating how these rights were infringed upon during the process.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply when reviewing the due process claim?

The court reviewed the due process claim by examining whether Brantley pleaded sufficient facts to establish a violation. The court determined that the allegations did not meet the pleading requirements to demonstrate a deprivation of due process rights.

Q: Why was Jennifer Ferrell Brantley's breach of contract claim dismissed?

The breach of contract claim was dismissed because the appellate court found it was not viable under the circumstances presented. This suggests that the contractual relationship, if any, did not support the claim as pleaded by Brantley in the context of academic misconduct proceedings.

Q: Did the court consider the specific rules or policies governing academic misconduct at the institution?

While not explicitly detailed in the summary, the court's decision implies an examination of the procedures followed in the academic misconduct proceedings. The failure to plead facts demonstrating a due process violation suggests the court assessed whether the established procedures were followed or if they were constitutionally inadequate.

Q: What does it mean for a claim to be 'not viable' in this context?

A claim being 'not viable' means that, even if all the facts alleged by the plaintiff were true, the law does not provide a remedy for that claim under the given circumstances. In this case, the breach of contract claim did not legally hold up against the defendant's actions or the nature of the proceedings.

Q: What is the significance of pleading 'facts demonstrating a violation'?

Pleading 'facts demonstrating a violation' means a plaintiff must provide specific details and evidence in their complaint to support their legal claims. General allegations are insufficient; the court requires concrete assertions that, if proven, would establish the alleged wrongdoing, such as a due process violation.

Q: What is the role of an 'Acting Executive Director' in this case?

Melissa Jones-Wommack, in her capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, was responsible for overseeing or adjudicating the academic misconduct proceedings against Jennifer Ferrell Brantley. Her official capacity is relevant because the lawsuit targeted her actions taken in that role.

Q: Does this ruling set a new precedent for due process in academic misconduct cases in Texas?

The opinion affirmed a lower court's dismissal, indicating it likely applied existing legal standards rather than establishing a new precedent. However, it reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs to plead specific facts to support due process claims in academic disciplinary matters.

Q: How does Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And affect me?

This case reinforces the high pleading standards required for due process claims against educational institutions and clarifies that university handbooks are generally not treated as strict contracts. Students facing academic misconduct proceedings must demonstrate specific procedural unfairness and exhaust internal appeals before seeking judicial intervention. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of this decision on students facing academic misconduct allegations?

This decision emphasizes that students must be precise and factual in their complaints if they believe their due process rights were violated during academic misconduct proceedings. Vague accusations are unlikely to succeed, and students need to clearly articulate how specific procedures or rights were denied.

Q: How might this ruling affect university administrators responsible for student conduct?

University administrators can take some comfort in the affirmation of dismissal for claims lacking specific factual allegations. It suggests that adherence to established procedures, even if challenged, may be defensible if the student fails to articulate a concrete due process violation.

Q: What are the compliance implications for educational institutions following this ruling?

Educational institutions should ensure their student conduct policies and procedures are clearly defined and consistently applied. This ruling highlights the importance of meticulous record-keeping and adherence to established protocols to withstand potential legal challenges based on due process.

Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack?

Students facing academic misconduct proceedings and the university officials responsible for administering those proceedings are most directly affected. The ruling clarifies the pleading standards required for students to pursue legal action against such officials.

Q: What advice would this case give to a student considering legal action against a university for academic misconduct?

A student considering legal action should consult with an attorney to ensure their complaint is factually specific and clearly articulates how their due process rights were violated or how a contract was breached, rather than relying on general assertions.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal history of student rights in academic proceedings?

This case continues the legal evolution of student rights, building upon landmark decisions like Goss v. Lopez, which established due process requirements for student suspensions. It reinforces that while students have rights, they must be articulated with specific factual allegations to succeed in court.

Q: What legal principles regarding due process in academic settings existed before this case?

Prior to this case, established legal principles, notably from Supreme Court cases, dictated that students facing disciplinary actions that could lead to suspension or expulsion were entitled to certain due process protections, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Q: How does the Brantley v. Jones-Wommack decision compare to other cases involving academic misconduct appeals?

This decision aligns with many appellate rulings that affirm dismissals when plaintiffs fail to meet pleading standards. It underscores the judicial deference often given to institutional academic processes, provided basic due process is afforded and clearly articulated violations are alleged.

Q: What was the docket number in Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And?

The docket number for Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And is 15-26-00001-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Jennifer Ferrell Brantley v. Melissa Jones-Wommack, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Executive Director of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, And be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did Jennifer Ferrell Brantley's case reach the Texas Court of Appeals?

Jennifer Ferrell Brantley appealed the trial court's decision to dismiss her claims. The trial court had already ruled against her, and the appellate court reviewed that decision to determine if the trial court had erred in its judgment.

Q: What procedural ruling did the appellate court make regarding Brantley's claims?

The appellate court's procedural ruling was to affirm the trial court's dismissal of both the due process and breach of contract claims. This means the appellate court agreed with the trial court that Brantley's lawsuit should not proceed.

Q: What is the significance of the 'official capacity' designation for Melissa Jones-Wommack?

Suing an official in their 'official capacity' means the lawsuit is effectively against the governmental entity they represent, in this case, the institution's student conduct office. This designation is important for determining liability and the type of relief that can be sought.

Q: What happens after an appellate court affirms a dismissal?

After the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, Jennifer Ferrell Brantley's case against Melissa Jones-Wommack was concluded at that level. Unless further appeals to a higher court are possible and pursued, the trial court's dismissal stands, and Brantley's claims are resolved.