The Tenth District Court of Appeals, which covers Columbus and Franklin County, upheld the dismissal of a student's appeal of his expulsion for smoking marijuana prior to attending school.
In that case, the student had been expelled from school for allegedly smoking marijuana before class. The student and his parents appealed the expulsion decision and pursued a hearing on the matter. After the hearing, the school board upheld the expulsion and sent written notice to the student on December 21, 2009.
Thereafter, the student and his parents filed suit on January 20, 2010, appealing the administrative decision of the Board. In dismissing the case, the Court found that the student and his parents had not followed the proper procedure because R.C. 2505.07 requires appeals to be filed within 30 days of the decision, and for the appeal to be filed with the administrative agency, not the court.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the expulsion stands.
Showing posts with label school suspension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school suspension. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Cleveland Appeals Court upholds student's suspension
The Eight District Court of Appeals in Cleveland, Ohio recently upheld the suspension of two students who were suspended for allegedly fighting in Buckosh v. Westlake City Schools, 2009-Ohio-1093.
The student challenged the decision of the court of common pleas upholding the decision of the school board to suspend them. She made a few arguments to the appellate court, among them that her constitutional rights and statutory rights under R.C. 3319.66 to notice had been violated, that the trial court was wrong for not allowing her to argue self-defense and that the trial court was wrong in not giving her an opportunity to present more evidence.
The appellate court found that because, in its opinion, (1) the student had been provided with written notice of the charges against her, (2) the school district provide the reasons it was was suspending her, (3) the student had an opportunity to explain her actions, neither the U.S. Constitution or the Revised Code had been violated.
Additionally, the appeals court found that the student's rights to substantive due process were not violated when a student is denied an opportunity to present an affirmative defense of self-defense in a school suspension hearing.
Finally, because the student was unable to show that the result would have been any different if more evidence was brought before the trial court, the court of appeals upheld her suspension.
The student challenged the decision of the court of common pleas upholding the decision of the school board to suspend them. She made a few arguments to the appellate court, among them that her constitutional rights and statutory rights under R.C. 3319.66 to notice had been violated, that the trial court was wrong for not allowing her to argue self-defense and that the trial court was wrong in not giving her an opportunity to present more evidence.
The appellate court found that because, in its opinion, (1) the student had been provided with written notice of the charges against her, (2) the school district provide the reasons it was was suspending her, (3) the student had an opportunity to explain her actions, neither the U.S. Constitution or the Revised Code had been violated.
Additionally, the appeals court found that the student's rights to substantive due process were not violated when a student is denied an opportunity to present an affirmative defense of self-defense in a school suspension hearing.
Finally, because the student was unable to show that the result would have been any different if more evidence was brought before the trial court, the court of appeals upheld her suspension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)