Week+2+Judicial+Review

 __// **Final Summary:** //__(Scroll down to view or contribute to the working summary) 
 * Name of Case:** Wood vs. Strickland


 * Citation:** 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975)


 * Date:** 1975


 * Facts:** This case was a Supreme Court review of a case that had appeared before the District Court as well as the Court of Appeals. Three students had been suspended for 3 months"spiking" punch that was served at an extracurricular event. Two of the students filed suit against administrators and board members under section 1983, seeking damages due to the violation of their due process rights. The students had admitted to spiking the punch which was against policy.


 * Issue:** Do school officials have absolute immunity from violating the civil rights of students or can they be held liable?


 * Holding:** Any act that violates a student's constitutional rights is not justifiable. While a school official must always act in good faith,be knowledgeable about due process rights, and must make decisions based on reasonable information in a timely manner, granting an official absolute immunity would deny the protections built into section 1983. Compensatory awards, however, are only appropriate when a school official has acted with blatant disregard for a student's constitutional rights. A school board member is not immune from liability if he knew, or reasonably should have know, that his action would violate the constitutional rights of another, or if the action was malicious. 


 * Rationale:** The court reviewed three cases that discuss the intended scope of immunity protections for various government officials. Within these cases, the common law doctrine of immunity was maintained. The court also discussed public policy in relation to immunity; for example, qualified applicants for the school board would not seek election if they were threatened with liability for wrongful actions that were made in good faith. However, the court also determined that absolute immunity would not sufficiently increase the ability of a school official to make a judgment. The court found that, while actions made in good faith do not warrant compensatory awards, officials are not absolutely immune when they violate the consitutional rights of students. 

__//** Working Summary: **//__

Name of Case: Wood vs. Strickland Citation: 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) Date: 1975 Facts: This case was a Supreme Court review of a case that had appeared before the District Court as well as the Court of Appeals. Three students had been suspended <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">for 3 months for "spiking" punch that was served at an extracurricular event. Two of the students filed suit <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);">against administrators and board members <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">under section 1983, seeking damages due to the violation of their due process rights. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">The students had admitted to spiking the punch which was against policy. Issue:<span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);">( <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">Does a school administrator or board member <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);">) Do school officials <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);"> have absolute immunity from violating the civil rights of <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">students ? //<span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);">(I changed it to school officials because I was unclear if the immunity only applied to the school board members because on page 409 of the 6th edition it states"petitioners as members of the school board assert here...and absolute immunity from liability under section 1983..." Did the rest of you understand it to be school board members only, or administrators too? <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Later on that same page, though, it states that "the nature of immunity available to school administrators and school board members has not been answered with a single voice." That leads me to beileive that the case involved school administrators as well as the school board members. Also, on page 410 it states "...strong public policy reasons lead to a construction of section 1983 extending a qualified good-faith immunity to school board members from liability for damages under that section.) //<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">//I was unclear if they were talking about both board members and administrators, too. However on page 444 of the seventh edition, they state, "school officials, confronted with students behavior causing or threatening disruption..." which seems to me to imply administrators. That being said, I think using the wording "school officials" is the best way to go since it mirrors the language of the case.// <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">I think that this particular case had to do with school board members and adminstrators (decision makers) and whether they can be held liable (even financially) for having violated the expelled students due process rights. Previous cases ruled in favor of generally protecting Board members from liability so that they can make decision free from fear. The Board did not give them the students rights to a formal hearing, the right to call witnesses and other due process rights in this disciplinary process. Holding: <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">Any act that violates a student's constitutional rights is not justifiable. While a school official must always act in good faith, <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">be knowledgeable about due process rights, and must make decisions based on reasonable information in a timely manner, granting an official absolute immunity would deny the protections built into section 1983. Compensatory awards, however, are only appropriate when a school official has acted with blatant disregard for a student's constitutional rights. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 105, 128);">A school board member is not immune from liability if he knew, or reasonably should have know, that his action would violate the constitutional rights of another, or if the action was malicious. Agreed...I couldn't have said it any better and really do not know what else to add without just repeating what you both wrote. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Ditto Rationale: <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">The court reviewed three cases that discuss the intended scope of immunity protections for various government officials. Within these cases, the common law doctrine of immunity was maintained. The court also discussed public policy in relation to immunity; for example, qualified applicants for the school board would not seek election if they were threatened with liability for wrongful actions that were made in good faith. However, the court also determined that absolute immunity would not sufficiently increase the ability of a school official to make a judgment. The court found that, while actions made in good faith do not warrant compensatory awards, officials are not absolutely immune when they violate the <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">constitutional rights of students. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"> Great rationale statement! This ruling certainly does put the pressure on for us to make sure we think long and hard about our decision. It's also a reason to buy some good liability insurance since, even the best of us can make a mistake.

Christie <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);">Jennifer <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Julie <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Erin

Wow Christie - you did a great job getting us started! I had a hard time understanding parts of the case (all that legal wording and phrasing!) but you synthesized the info very succinctly and it makes sense to me now! :-) Thanks! -- Jenn <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255);">Thanks Jenn. I struggled with the language of the case too!! I don't think I'm cut out for legal-ese. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"> Christie, Jenn is right! You did a great job! reading all of this stuff reminds me of why I did not go to law school. The language is quite a challenge... Julie

<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Christie and Jenn- I think that the Wiki was a great format for this assignment. Thanks for creating the Wiki and thanks for initiating the review. I admit that I didn't have a very clear understanding of this case until I completed this assingment.