Trial Court Case Summary

It was also concluded that the IHSAA broke one of their own rules in regards to the Hardship Rule. According to the Transfer Rule: Rule 19, even when B.J. was granted partial-eligibility, the IHSAA was violating Rule 19.4: “A student should be ineligible for 365 days if he or she transfers schools for athletic reasons”. On top of that, the IHSAA often times issues grants to children who move schools because of their parents. Yet, the IHSAA ignored the facts provided by the plaintiff and his family that would counteract their decision. Furthermore, the IHSAA claimed that the exception holds true when it includes children and/or public interest. The court agreed upon these standards, proving more reasons as to why B.J. should’ve been given the

Assuming that the school district was not justified in its actions, does Susie have a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

CASE CITATION: Kurt HOME and Brenda Home, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendants. No. 21696-5-II. (1998)

• During the Catañeda vs. Pickard case a father claimed that his two children were not having their educational rights met at their school in the Raymondville Independent School District. The father, Mr. Catañeda, further stated that the Raymondville Independent School District was not providing a proper bilingual education program for his children.

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

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

T.M., by A.M. and R.M., his parents, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Cornwall Central School District United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket nos. 12-4301, 12-4484(XAP). Decided: April 2, 2014

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

Lago Vista Independent School Distict. Gebser and her teacher had a sexual relationship that lasted for almost 2 years. The two were caught in the middle of having relations. The teacher was arrested by the local police department and his license were revoked by the state. Gebser never notified administrators or staff about the relationship between her and the teacher. Her parents tried to file a case on the school district for damages and monetary payment. The court ruled in favor of the school district. This case was very interesting and unique in many ways. I support the decision of the court on no to reward the victim monetary payment. Gebser never tried to notify anyone about the situation, it was more so enjoyment for her. This school district was very proactive and moved very quickly after finding out the

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, ET AL.

Perform a search in the University Library databases and locate four school-related court cases (with outcomes decided), two which involve educators as defendants and two which involve students as defendants. Fill in the table below. When you give your informed opinion, state and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Base your opinion on legal and ethical standards as discussed in Ch. 9 of the text. If you do not agree with the outcome, explain what would have been just. Base your explanation upon the rights and responsibilities of those involved. Cite your sources in APA format below the table.

It seems that in this country people want to rush to the courts to fix things. George could not be fixed by the courts so the time had come to be realistic about meeting George’s needs as no law in the United States gives the state the right to NOT meet his needs. Having looked at the final settlement and the numbers involved it seems clear to me that the family was not out to “milk the school district”. They wanted simply to see their son get the most he could get from the educational system and become as viable of an American citizen as possible. This case cries out for thinking outside the box and putting the child first. Unfortunately, as I have seen from interviewing other teachers many parents simply want a fix for their unfixable child. This case does not fall into this category and the fact that in the end solutions were found demonstrates that point.

The districts argued that the legislature failed to provide students with proper funding for academic needs; a sizeable gap has been created between the wealthy and poor school districts; and the school districts were having to tax at the maximum rate just to provide a basic education to students. Dietz ruled in favor of the school districts.