Ed V. Loudermill

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

Doe v. Big Walnut Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 837 F. Supp. 2d 742

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

The school’s rules were provided in student handbooks that were given to every student at the beginning of the year, and the rules are also posted in each of the classrooms on campus. The parents and student received detailed oral and written notice of the charges against the student, which provided information about the incident and evidence the administrator discovered. Since this student’s action presented an immediate danger the administrator was able to immediately remove the student from school without advance notice to the parents, however, the parents were told of the incident in a timely

In this paper I will address a due process rights afforded to a student in a scenario presented by The American College of Education. I will explain the substantive and procedural due process rights as they relate to student discipline in the situation. I will give concepts, and examples relating to freedom of speech and privacy. I will address the IEP educational rights as I understand it within the scope of California and the federal IDEA legislation.

in each case involving imposition of a penalty or sanction, the accused , Christopher Booz, shall have the right to appeal the decision. This appeal is written and shall be delivered to the vice president for Student Affairs, the hearing officers, the adjudicatory body, and the president of the University- within 5 class days following the decision by the hearing officer or the assistant vice president for Student Affairs. As a student, I have not forfeit the right to any appeal or fail to file an appeal within the 5 class day period. This appeal to the vice president for Student Affairs is made on the following grounds: Lack of due process, i.e., when a student can show an error in the hearing; or arbitrariness in finding against the weight of the evidence, lack of substantial evidence, evidence that was not considered or available that would subsequently change the nature of the case.

Prior to that hearing, Slaughter was aware of the topics to be discussed during the trial, and thus he had proper notice. Additionally, prior to the hearing, the Dean of the Brigham Young University graduate school contacted and informed Slaughter personally of the location of the hearing and allegations against the plaintiff. After an ongoing institutional investigation that last several months, the university hearing was held between the plaintiff, the Dean of the graduate school, the chair of the Chemistry department, the assistant to the chair of the Chemistry department, two faculty members from Slaughter’s advisory committee, and Dr. Thorne, Slaughter’s advisor. The plaintiff alleged that he received implied permission to use Dr. Thorne’s name because of his position as the plaintiff’s advisor. After hearing this explanation and considering the plaintiff’s academic progress, on March 14, 1972, Slaughter was expelled from the graduate school for violating the Brigham Young University Code of Student Conduct. The plaintiff was formally informed of his expulsion and he was given the opportunity to record the hearing. No further proceedings were

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) is an example of the Due Process Clause. David Roth was employed at Wisconsin State University. After Roth contract end, the school informed Roth that his contract was not up for renewal. The school did not provide Roth with a reason; consequently, Roth filed a claim. The ruling stated that although Roth is owed an explanation for not rehiring him, Roth’s right was not violated. Roth does not have any property rights.

Even if we assume that Shahmaleki does have a property interest in his continued enrollment then there is still no due process issue as the University provided Shahmaleki sufficient process under the law. Students in disciplinary settings are only entitled to “some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing”. Universities normally should provide students notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against them and an opportunity to present their side of the story. These are not rigid requirements, though, as due process is flexible and tailored to the specific facts of a case. In determining what is enough process, courts balance the student’s

Wright (1977). In this case a James Ingraham, a junior at a nearby Florida high school, was harshly punished by the principle and assistant principle after classroom misbehavior. Ingraham was spanked twenty times with a wooden bat and advised by his doctor to stay home and recover from his injuries, but he knew he had to do something. Himself and another student, who had also been beaten, filled a complaint against the school knowing it violated their due process rights and the Eight Amendment. The case was eventually brought up to the Supreme Court and voted 5-4. The Justices’ said that Eighth Amendment was intended for people facing a crime and not school students. Justice White says “The disciplinarian need only take a few minutes to give the student 'notice of the charge against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story” (White). Even though the case did not end in favor of the standouts it can still teach us a lesson that you have to fight for what you think is right and that everything happens for a

In a large suburban high school in Wisconsin, a teacher has been dismissed for his actions that put students in danger in the eyes of the administration and school board. The teacher has appealed the decision with the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board (WLRB) and has won his appeal. This means the teacher will be returning to work with back pay. After winning his appeals case said teacher has sued the district in federal court for wrongful dismissal as a violation of his civil rights. He has asked for $500,000 and won the case being awarded the amount of $5,000. Throughout this report we will take a look back at the entire situations and discuss alternatives to what could have been done. (Teacher Dismissal For Cause)

In Columbus, Ohio, nine students, one of which was named Dwight Lopez, were given a ten-day suspension from Central High School; due to the fact, that they were accused of destroying school property and disturbing the learning environment. According to the Ohio Law § 3313.66, a ten day suspension or expulsion are completely within the rights of the principal; however, it is also required that the parents of the students are notified within twenty-four hours and a reason is given. In addition, expelled students have the right to appeal the expulsion to the Board of Educations as stated in Ohio Law §3313.66, but this does not relate to suspension. However, these students were not given the right to a hearing, which was a clear violation of their

Yes, I do not believe that the Russ College violated Jays due process rights, as the school did not give him a chance to explain himself before they gave him the reputation they did and take away his ability to advise students.