ÿWPC 3#!ÚUNû %I 0åOw@44tˆ—ÆŸNeg mi 0J€ 0TÊ 0^ 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè 0d] AQÁ Æ 0Ø 0@Ù 0D D/] BŒ B© D3ÆU>ùB)7DC` AM£U*ð¥v~¿vÓ=˜Tech HP4si,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(½“$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X.ÜXXXÔ ÃVÄ[Å[ÆÇÈÉÊDËÓ€ÌuYf#3|xÍLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ù3úé$¢¢Ý ƒ“!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€X…XXXÔÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ›Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔÓÓFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌNovemberÏ19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_ÔÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÓÓò òÔ_ÔßR€.0-A1-j|` ä `€€@ÿRßÔ_ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌMICHAEL€SANDERSON,€€€€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Equity€No.€94„3806„IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌUNIVERSITY€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9607„CH„00289Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellee.à àò òà àà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:òòÌóóÌMarilyn€L.€Hudson€à àà àà àà àÔ_ÔBeauchampÔ_Ô€E.€BroganÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àRonald€C.€Ô_ÔLeadbetterÔ_ÔÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€Ô_ÔLILLARDÔ_Ô,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_ÔÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÔ_ÔÑ8€…XXdìXXdì8ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àIn€this€case,€a€student€at€the€University€of€Tennessee€was€charged€with€plagiarism.€€After€aÏhearing,€an€administrative€law€judge€found€that€the€student€had€not€committed€plagiarism.€€TheÏUniversity€Chancellor€reversed€the€ALJððs€decision,€issuing€a€final€order€finding€the€student€guiltyÏof€plagiarism.€€The€student€appealed€this€decision€to€the€chancery€court,€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏUniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€which€affirmed€the€finding€of€plagiarism.€€We€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€chancery€court.€Ìà àIn€the€spring€of€1994,€Plaintiff/Appellant€Michael€Sanderson€(ð ðSandersonðð)€was€a€seniorÏundergraduate€student€at€The€University€of€Tennessee€at€Knoxville.€€He€was€enrolled€in€a€classÏtaught€by€Professor€Robert€Glenn.€€Professor€Glenn€distributed€the€class€syllabus€electronically€atÏthe€beginning€of€the€semester.€€The€syllabus€stated€that€a€term€paper€would€account€for€30%€of€theÏcourse€grade.€€The€syllabus€further€provided:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAll€assignments€are€to€be€the€original€work€of€the€student€presenting€the€work.€ÏSources€used€in€preparation€are€to€be€cited,€and€direct€quotations€are€to€be€identifiedÏas€such.€€Presentation€of€materials€prepared€by€another€person€as€your€own€work€isÏcause€for€failure€in€the€course.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€class€discussed€the€subject€of€plagiarism€during€two€separate€class€meetings,€and€SandersonÏattended€class€on€both€of€these€occasions.€€One€of€the€course€textbooks€assigned€as€reading€forÏeach€class€member€defined€plagiarism€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓPlagiarism€means€using€an€authorððs€words€or€ideas€without€giving€credit.€€CreditÏfor€ideas€usually€is€in€the€form€of€citing€the€author€and€year€of€publication€in€the€textÏand€reference€list.€€Credit€for€actual€words€goes€beyond€this€to€giving€the€pageÏnumber€in€the€text€and€using€quotation€marks€around€the€quoted€material.€€ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€course€syllabus€provided€that€the€first€draft€of€the€term€paper€was€due€on€April€20,Ï1994.€€It€did€not€state€that€the€first€draft€would€be€graded,€but€stated€that€the€draft€counted€for€15%Ïof€the€final€grade.€€Sanderson€submitted€his€first€draft€by€E„mail€to€Professor€Glenn€and€receivedÏan€initial€grade€of€84,€one€of€the€three€highest€grades€in€the€class.€€After€Glennððs€review,ÏSanderson€decided€to€enter€his€paper€in€the€university„sponsored€McClung€Research€PaperÏContest.€€Sanderson€was€ill€the€day€the€contest€entries€were€due,€and€his€girlfriend€took€hisÏcomputer€disk€to€the€speech€department€and€entered€the€paper€in€the€contest€for€him.Ìà àOne€of€the€faculty€members€who€reviewed€the€contest€entries€contacted€Glenn€and€told€himÏthat€some€of€the€material€in€Sandersonððs€paper€was€not€original.€€Glenn€then€comparedÏSandersonððs€first€draft€and€the€paper€entered€in€the€contest€with€the€original€sources.€€He€concludedÏthat€much€of€the€first€half€of€Sandersonððs€paper€had€come€fromòòò ò€Persuasion:€Theory€andÏResearchó óóó,€a€book€written€by€Daniel€J.€OððKeefe.€€This€book€was€a€textbook€in€another€speechÏclass€that€Sanderson€had€taken€previously.€€After€the€comparisons,€Glenn€sent€Sanderson€an€E„mail€message€asking€to€meet€with€him€to€discuss€his€term€paper.€€Ìà àOn€May€4,€1994,€Glenn€met€with€Sanderson€in€the€presence€of€Dr.€Faye€Julian,€the€head€ofÏthe€speech€department.€€Glenn€told€Sanderson€that€he€believed€portions€of€the€term€paper€had€beenÏplagiarized.€€Sanderson€denied€the€charge€and€claimed€that€he€had€not€cited€meticulously€in€his€firstÏdraft€because€he€believed€such€exhaustive€citation€was€not€required€in€a€rough€draft.€€He€divulgedÏthat€he€used€an€unpublished€masterððs€thesis€as€a€source€but€that€he€failed€to€cite€that€sourceÏanywhere€in€the€paper.€€All€of€the€other€sources€were€cited€somewhere€in€the€body€of€the€paper€andÏin€the€bibliography.€€Sanderson€also€claimed€that€his€girlfriend€had€mistakenly€taken€the€wrongÏcomputer€disk€to€submit€his€paper€in€the€contest.€€He€then€produced€a€third€version€of€the€paper,Ïprinted€from€a€different€disk,€which€he€claimed€was€supposed€to€have€been€submitted€in€theÏcontest.€€Ìà àFollowing€the€meeting,€Glenn€compared€Sandersonððs€first€draft,€the€contest€paper,€and€theÏpaper€that€Sanderson€gave€him€at€the€May€4th€meeting€with€a€number€of€the€source€documents.€ÏAfter€comparing€all€three€versions€to€the€sources,€Glenn€concluded€that€Sanderson€had€committed€Ïplagiarism.€€€Glenn€notified€Sanderson€that€he€would€receive€an€ð ðFðð€in€Speech€499.€€€Glenn€thenÏforwarded€the€matter€to€the€University€administration€for€disciplinary€action,€and€the€UniversityÏformally€charged€Sanderson€with€plagiarizing€in€the€first€draft€of€his€term€paper.€€Ìà àA€hearing€on€the€charge€of€plagiarism€was€held€before€an€Administrative€Law€JudgeÏ(ð ðALJðð).€€Noting€that€the€University€did€not€have€an€established€definition€of€plagiarism,€the€ALJÏused€the€definition€in€ò òòòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryó óóó:€ð ðThe€act€of€appropriating€the€literaryÍcomposition€of€another,€or€parts€of€passages€of€his€writings,€or€the€ideas€or€œlanguage›€of€the€œsame,›Ïand€passing€them€off€as€the€product€of€oneððs€own€mind.ðð€€ò òòòBlackððs€Law€œDictionary€ó óóó1308›€(4thÏœed.€1968).›€€Based€on€this€definition€and€the€testimony€of€Sanderson€and€his€girlfriend,€the€ALJÏfound€that€Sanderson€did€not€intend€to€commit€plagiarism€and€therefore€was€not€guilty€of€theÏcharge.€€€œÌà àPursuant›€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€4„5„315,€the€University€appealed€the€ALJððs€initialÏorder€to€the€University€Chancellor,€€William€Snyder.€€Chancellor€Snyder€did€not€hold€a€hearing,Ïbut€reviewed€the€record.€€Chancellor€Snyder€compared€all€three€drafts€of€Sandersonððs€paper€to€theÏoriginal€source€materials€and,€citing€the€definitions€of€plagiarism€utilized€in€the€class,€concludedÏthat€Sanderson€was€guilty€of€plagiarism.€€€He€issued€a€final€œorder,›€reversing€the€ALJððs€œdecision,›Ïaffirming€the€penalty€of€a€final€grade€of€ð ðFðð€for€the€course€and€suspending€Sanderson€for€one€year.€ÏSanderson€then€appealed€Chancellor€Snyderððs€final€order€to€the€chancery€court€under€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€4„5„322.€€Ìà àThe€chancery€court€reviewed€the€entire€record,€including€Exhibit€15€to€the€hearing€beforeÏthe€ALJ,€in€which€all€three€versions€of€Sandersonððs€paper€were€directly€compared€to€the€sourceÏœmaterials,›€both€cited€and€uncited.€€After€doing€so,€the€chancery€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àA€review€of€the€record€shows€that€there€is€ample€evidence€that€petitioner€didÏplagiarize.€€This€is€especially€evident€from€an€examination€of€œexhibit›€15€to€theÏhearing€transcript,€a€comparison€of€the€petitionerððs€three€versions€of€his€paper€andÏhis€original€sources.€€There€are€numerous€examples€in€which€the€petitioner€tookÏverbatim€from€a€source€and€did€not€enclose€the€quotation€within€quotation€marks€orÏcite€the€source€and€page.€€There€are€numerous€examples€where€he€took€an€idea€fromÏa€source€and€failed€to€credit€the€source.€€There€are€also€numerous€places€where€theÏpetitioner€paraphrased€the€source€by€simply€changing€a€word€or€two€of€a€sentence,Ïyet€he€did€not€cite€his€source.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€used€a€great€deal€of€materialÏfrom€a€masterððs€thesis€by€John€Hutchinson,€but€nowhere€cites€the€source.€€These€allÏsupport€Chancellor€Snyderððs€finding€of€plagiarism.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€chancery€court€found€that€there€was€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€theÏUniversityððs€final€order,€and€therefore€affirmed€the€determination€of€the€plagiarism.€€SandersonÏnow€appeals€the€chancery€courtððs€decision.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Sanderson€contends€that€the€Universityððs€final€decision€was€not€supported€byÍsubstantial€and€material€evidence€because€Chancellor€Snyder€failed€to€take€the€ALJððsÏdeterminations€of€credibility€into€account.€€Sanderson€claims€that€plagiarism€requires€intent€andÏnotes€that€only€the€ALJ€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€and€assess€credibility.€ÏBecause€the€ALJ€found€credible€Sandersonððs€testimony€that€he€did€not€intend€to€commitÏplagiarism,€Sanderson€argues€that€Chancellor€Snyderððs€final€order€finding€him€guilty€of€plagiarismÏis€not€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€€€Ìà àThe€University€argues€that€Chancellor€Snyder€was€not€required€to€take€the€ALJððs€findingsÏof€fact€into€account€when€he€reviewed€the€initial€order.€€The€University€maintains€that€the€chanceryÏcourt€correctly€limited€itself€to€reviewing€only€the€final€agency€decision€that€was€issued€byÏChancellor€Snyder,€rather€than€the€initial€decision€rendered€by€the€ALJ.€€It€also€contends€that€thereÏwas€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€the€Universityððs€final€decision.€€Ìà àJudicial€review€of€the€final€decision€of€an€administrative€agency€is€governed€by€theÏTennessee€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€œTennessee›€Code€œAnnotated›€ðððð€4„5„101€to€4„5„325€(1991€&€Supp.€1996).€€The€chancery€court€may€reverse€or€modify€the€decision€if€the€rights€ofÏthe€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€the€administrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions,€orÏdecisions€are€unsupported€by€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidence€in€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€ò òòòId.€Ïóóó óðð€4„5„322(h)(5).€€This€Court€reviews€a€final€agency€decision€under€the€same€standard.€€ò òòòHumanaÏof€Tennessee€v.€Tennessee€Health€Facilities€Commððnó óóó,€551€S.W.2d€664,€667„68€(Tenn.Ï1977).€€Although€not€defined€by€statute,€courts€have€held€that€substantial€and€material€evidenceÏrequires€ð ðsomething€less€than€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€but€more€than€a€scintilla€orÏglimmer.ðð€€ò òòòWayne€County€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€756ÏS.W.2d€274,€280€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€(citations€omitted).€€Under€this€narrow€standard,€this€CourtÏdoes€not€review€the€fact€issues€on€a€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€basis€and€cannot€displace€the€agencyððs€judgment€asÏto€the€weight€of€the€evidence€even€when€there€is€evidence€that€could€lead€to€a€different€decision.€Ïò òòòId.ó óó󀜀at€279€(citations›€omitted).€Ìà àThis€case€involves€appellate€review€of€an€administrative€agencyððs€final€decision.€€Under€theÍTennessee€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€an€initial€order€becomes€a€final€order€onlyÏwhen€the€initial€order€is€not€appealed€in€accordance€with€ðð€4„5„315€of€the€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ4„5„314(b)›€(1991€&€Supp.€1996).€€The€standard€governing€anÏagencyððs€review€of€an€initial€order€entered€by€an€administrative€officer€or€hearing€officer€is€set€forthÏin€ðð€4„5„315(d):ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€person€reviewing€an€initial€order€shall€exercise€all€the€œdecision„making›€powerÏthat€the€agency€would€have€had€to€render€a€final€order€had€the€agency€presided€overÏthe€hearing,€except€to€the€extent€that€the€issues€subject€to€review€are€limited€by€ruleÏor€statute€or€by€the€agency€upon€notice€to€all€œparties.›€€ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓò òòòId.€€óóó óðð€4„5„315(d).€€Likewise,€the€Universityððs€rules€provide€the€following€standard€for€review€ofÏan€initial€order:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€Chancellor,€in€reviewing€an€initial€order,€shall€exercise€all€the€decision€makingÏpower€that€he€would€have€had€he€presided€over€the€hearing€himself,€except€to€theÏextent€that€the€issues€subject€to€review€are€limited€by€law€or€rule€of€the€UniversityÏor€by€the€Chancellor€upon€notice€to€all€parties.€ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Admin.€Reg.€1720„1„.01(13)(d)€(October€1996).Ìà àSanderson€argues€that€the€ALJ,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€is€to€be€afforded€great€deference€as€toÏhis€determinations€of€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony.€€InÏsupport€of€this€argument,€Sanderson€cites€ò òòòLettner€v.€Plummeró óóó,€559€S.W.2d€785€(Tenn.€1977).€ÏIn€ò òòòLettneró óóó,€alleged€drug€dealers€challenged€the€policeððs€seizure€of€large€amounts€of€cash€fromÏtheir€home.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€786.€€An€administrative€hearing€officer€held€that€the€cash€was€subject€toÏforfeiture€under€the€drug€control€laws.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó€€The€chancery€court€affirmed€this€decision.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€OnÏappeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€that€the€credibility€of€witnesses€ð ðis€primarily€a€matterÏfor€determination€by€the€hearing€officer.ðð€€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€787.€€€Because€there€was€ample€evidence€toÏsupport€the€administrative€agencyððs€decision,€the€Court€affirmed.€€ò òòòId.€€€óóó óSanderson€also€citesÏò òòòLanders€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€Insurance€Co.ó óóó,€775€S.W.2d€355€(Tenn.€1989),€in€which€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€reiterated€the€general€principle€that€deference€should€be€given€to€a€trialÏjudgeððs€determinations€as€to€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€356€(citing€ò òòòHumphrey€v.€DavidÏWitherspoon,€Inc.ó óóó,€734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.€1987)).€Ìà àThe€University€argues€that€Chancellor€Snyder€was€not€required€to€defer€to€theÏdeterminations€of€credibility€of€the€ALJ€in€this€case€because€Chancellor€Snyder€had€the€authority€toÏconduct€a€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€review€of€the€initial€order.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„315(d)€œ(1991);›€Tenn.ÏAdmin.€Reg.€œ1720„1„.01(13)(d)›€(October€1996).€€ò òòòSee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòPatterson€v.€Huntó óóó,€682€S.W.2dÏ508,€515€(Tenn.€App.€1984)€(noting€that€a€university€chancellor€had€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€review€in€issuing€aÏfinal€decision)€(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àThe€University€relies€on€ò òòòUnited€States€v.€Raddatzó óóó,€447€U.S.€667,€100€S.€Ct.€2406,Ï65€L.€Ed.€2d€424€(1980),€in€which€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€considered€whether€dueÏprocess€requires€a€decision€maker€to€personally€observe€witnesses€testify.€€ò òòòId.€€Raddatzó óóó€involvedÏa€district€courtððs€review€of€a€magistrateððs€proposed€findings.€However,€the€Court€analogized€thoseÏfacts€to€administrative€agency€cases€and€noted€that€the€person€or€entity€making€the€final€agencyÏdecision€may,€but€is€not€required€to,€defer€to€a€hearing€officerððs€findings.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€680,€100€S.€Ct.Ïat€2414„15.€€The€Court€concluded€that€due€process€does€not€require€the€decision€maker€to€observeÏthe€witnesses€testify€and€that€there€is€ð ðbroad€discretion€to€accept,€reject,€or€modify€the€[factÏfinderððs]€findings.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€680,€100€S.€Ct.€at€2415.€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€University€cites€òòò òGilbert€v.€University€of€Tennesseeó óóó,€œNo›.€3€€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Jan.€31,€1983),€ò òòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€April€4,€1983),€òòò òcert.€deniedó óóó,€471€U.S.Ï1050,€105€S.€Ct.€2108,€85€L.€Ed.€œ2d€474€(1985).›€€In€œò òòòGilbertó óóó,›€the€University€appealed€the€initialÏorder€of€a€hearing€examiner€finding€the€accused€innocent€of€a€disciplinary€charge.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€œ1„2.›€€TheÏuniversity€chancellor€entered€a€final€order€reversing€the€findings€of€the€hearing€examiner€andÏfinding€the€accused€guilty€as€charged.€€ò òòòId.€œó óóó€at€2.€€On›€appeal,€œò òGilbertó ó›€challenged€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€universityððs€rule€permitting€the€chancellor€to€substitute€his€decision€for€thatÏof€the€hearing€examinerððs.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó€at€œ3.›€€The€Court€stated€that€ð ðthe€law€on€this€topic€is€crystal€clearÏthat€administrative€œagencies›€are€not€bound€to€accept€the€findings€and€recommendations€of€hearingÏexaminers.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€5.€€Following€ò òòòRaddatzó óóó,€the€Court€held€that€due€process€does€not€require€theÏdecision€maker€to€observe€the€witnesses€testify.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€œ5„6.›€Ìà àIn€ò òòòLettneró óóó,€cited€by€Sanderson,€the€decision€of€the€administrative€hearing€officer€was€theÏagencyððs€final€decision,€and€the€œchancellor›€reviewed€it€under€the€standard€set€forth€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€œ4„5„322(h)(5).€€òòò òLettneró óóó,€559€S.W.2d€at€786.€€In›€this€case,€however,€the€ALJððsÏdecision€was€only€an€òòinitialóó€order,€and€was€appealed€to€the€University€Chancellor.€€ChancellorÏSnyder€reviewed€the€matter€under€the€correct€standard,€exercising€the€same€ð ðdecision€makingÏpower€that€he€would€have€œhad€had›€he€presided€over€the€hearing€himself.ðð€€Tenn.€Admin.€Reg.Ï1720„1„.01€(13)(d)€(October€1996).€€ò òòòSee€alsoó óóó€Tenn.€Code€œAnn.€ðð›€4„5„315(d).€€ChancellorÏSnyder€appropriately€utilized€the€definition€of€plagiarism€given€to€the€class€by€Professor€Glenn,Ïthat€is,€ð ðusing€an€authorððs€words€or€ideas€without€giving€credit,ðð€instead€of€the€definition€ofÏplagiarism€utilized€by€the€œALJ,›€which€required€an€intent€to€pass€off€the€works€of€another€as€oneððsÏown.€€After€reviewing€the€entire€record,€including€a€comparison€of€all€three€versions€ofÏSandersonððs€paper€with€the€source€materials,€Chancellor€Snyder€issued€the€agencyððs€òòfinalóó€order,Ïfinding€Sanderson€guilty€of€plagiarism€and€affirming€the€penalty.€€œAs›€noted€in€ò òòòRaddatzó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóóÏand€œò òòòGilbertó óóó,›ò òòòsupraó óóó,€Chancellor€Snyder€was€not€required€to€observe€the€witnesses€and€was€notÏbound€by€the€determination€of€the€ALJ.€€Ìà àTherefore,€Chancellor€Snyderððs€order€was€the€final€order,€subject€to€review€by€theÏchancery€court,€and€this€Court,€by€the€standard€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€4„5„322(h)(5),€that€is,€a€determination€of€whether€Chancellor€Snyderððs€final€order€was€supported€byÏð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidence€in€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ4„5„322(h)(5)€(1991).›€Ìà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€the€chancery€court€concluded€that€there€was€ð ðample€evidenceððÏthat€Sanderson€plagiarized.€€We€agree.€€After€reviewing€the€entire€record,€and€comparing€all€threeÏversions€of€Sandersonððs€paper€to€the€source€materials,€regardless€of€whether€intent€is€required,Ïthere€is€clearly€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidenceðð€to€support€Chancellor€Snyderððs€finding€ofÏplagiarism.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€chancery€court.€ÌœÇ›à àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó