In re Appeal of Suspension of Huffer from Circleville High School11/22/1989
DOUGLAS, J.
The first issue before us is whether this case is moot since Huffer has graduated from high school.
In State, ex rel. The Repository, v. Unger (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 418, 420, 28 OBR 472, 474, 504 N.E. 2d 37, 39, we held that a case is not moot if the issues are "`"`capable of repetition, yet evading review.'"'"
Likewise, if a case involves a matter of public or great general interest, the court is vested with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, even though the case is moot. Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 30 OBR 33, 505 N.E. 2d 966.
The issue of the authority of local school boards to make rules and regulations is of "great general interest." The issue before us is certainly "capable of repetition," yet it may "evade review," since students who challenge school board rules generally graduate before the case winds its way through the court system. For these reasons, we decide this issue of school board authority.
Ohio has a rich tradition of local control of its public school districts. Section 3, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution states that " rovision shall be made by law for the organization, administration and control of the public school system of the state * * * provided, that each school district * * * shall have the power by referendum vote to determine for itself * * * the organization of the district board of education, and provision shall be made by law for the exercise of this power by such school districts." (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 3313.20 provides, in pertinent part, that " he board of education shall make such rules as are necessary for * * * the government of its * * * pupils of its schools * * *." R.C. 3313.47 declares, in part, that " ach * * * local board of education shall have the management and control of all the public schools * * * in its respective district. * * *"
have spoken of the broad power of Ohio's boards of education based upon earlier versions of these statutes.
Brannon v. Bd. of Edn. (1919), 99 Ohio St. 369, 124 N.E. 235, in paragraph two of the syllabus, held that " court has no authority to control the discretion vested in a board of education by the statutes of this state, or to substitute its judgment for the judgment of such board, upon any questions it is authorized by law to determine * * *." In Brannon, suprasin paragraph three of the syllabus, the court found that " court will not restrain a board of education from carrying into effect its determination of any question within its discretion, except for an abuse of discretion or for fraud or collusion * * *." (Emphasis added.)
In Greco v. Roper (1945), 145 Ohio St. 243, 30 O.O. 473, 61 N.E. 2d 307, paragraph one of the syllabus, we held that "* * * a board of education is charged with the management and control of the public schools in its district and is vested with authority to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its government * * *."
The United States Supreme Court in Bd. of Edn. of Rogers v. McCluskey (1982), 458 U.S. 966, held that the trial court must defer to the board of education's reasonable interpretation of its rule on mandatory suspension of students "under the influence of drugs."
In Wood v. Strickland (1975), 420 U.S. 308, 326, the court found that federal courts should not substitute their judgment for school administrators, decisions, since the system of public education in this country rests upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members. Thus, the United States Supreme Court and have
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|