The Case Of Ashfield Council V Trinity Grammar School

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

Title: Rose v. Council for better education. Supreme Court of Kentucky, 1989 790 S.W 2d 186.

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, involved the Bethel School District and a student named Matthew Fraser. The case dealt with freedom of speech in public schools. During a student government speech Fraser used inappropriate language that included sexual innuendos in order to nominate a fellow classmate. The speech created a rowdy audience of over 600 students. Fraser argued that the school violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him for his endorsement of a fellow classmate. After being tried and appealed in the Ninth Circuit in 1984, the case found it’s was to the United States Supreme Court in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled that school officials did NOT violate Fraser’s

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The Council commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, however they were dismissed by Lloyd J on February16 2005 for want of prosecution [5].

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

A child with disabilities is a major focus in today’s education. Achieving my Bachelors in Special Education, I need to be aware of the need to ensure appropriate education for all children with disabilities. “The education of children with disabilities is a top national priority. Our nation’s special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), sets high standards for their achievement and guides how special help and services are made available in schools to address their individual needs (National Dissemination)”. This is my biggest challenge. I feel with the right tools and

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

The high court made a judgement (15) which was Mabo 1992, which attempted to assist the Indigenous people with the act of racial decimation dealt with the injustices that were served by the government. Attempts were made to help the government that was under the rule of Paul Keating, who tried to help with the injustices that both parties were dealing with the RDA. This acknowledged the idea that there were things like native title had been beyond the likeness that some places were either private or public and had ownership which included idea that terra nullius was then wiped out. The opposition at the time was John Hewson with support of John Howard. After the decision was made, Keating was then compelled to act in the face of the high court’s

The appellant, Sparrow was caught fishing with a drift net longer than the acceptable length under the Fisheries Act. Sparrow is a member is of the Musqueam group and has certain rules to follow under this. The appellant has admitted to the act, but has claimed there is an existing aboriginal right to fish. This issue falls under Section 35(1) of the Constitution act of 1982, and Sparrow has claimed the Act is inconsistent as he is just exerting his rights as an aboriginal. The respondent in the Supreme Court has argued that section 35(1) only protects this aboriginal right in food-related cases. The case has been brought to the Supreme Court, as previous appeals have been unsuccessful.

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

The case study is presenting a lawsuit of Anita Groener, who is suing Minister for Education (hereinafter referred as ‘the Minister’) and the City of Dublin - Vocational Educational Committee (hereinafter referred as ‘the Education Committee’). The charge was based on the free movement of workers, more specific, knowledge of an official language of the host country. Mrs. Groener was a Netherlands’ national, who wanted to work as a full-time art teacher.