NEALE WOOD, A MINOR, BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, KATRINA WOOD, PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTS,
v.
ALAMO HEIGHTS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that school regulations on hair and grooming are permissible if related to the educational process and not arbitrary.
A student challenged school hair and grooming regulations, arguing a right to be free from such regulation. The District Court found the regulations w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ripeness For Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is another haircut ease. The recent decisions of this court have pointed to the necessity that before the federal courts intervene in cases such as this there must be “such prior reference to local institutional authority as may be necessary to assure that the action complained of is final within the institution in the sense that it is ripe for adjudication.” Stevenson v. Bd. of Education of Wheeler County, 426 F. 2d 1154 (student grooming regulations) ; cf. Lucas v. Chapman, 430 F. 2d 945 (failure to renew teacher contract). The District Court entered its opinion and judgment in this case prior to those decisions, therefore, we reach the merits instead of remanding to the local authorities.
The District Court found that the school regulations of hair and grooming were promulgated with the participation of students representing all facets of student life and embraced in large part the recommendations of the student participants. The appellant’s objection is not that the regulation is too stringent or overbroad but that he has the right to be free of school regulation of his hair. The District Court did not err in its conclusion that the regulation in question is not arbitrary or unreasonable and that it is sufficiently related to alleviating interference with the educational process. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F. 2d 697 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 856, 89 S.Ct. 98, 21 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968); Davis v. Firment, 408 F. 2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1969); Stevenson v. Wheeler County Bd. of Education; supra; Griffin v. Tatum, 425 F. 2d 201 .
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conyers v. Glenn, 243 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
-
Chesley Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Duke v. N. Tex. State Univ., 469 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Ferrell v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 392 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Stevenson v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Wheeler Cnty., 426 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Lucas v. Chapman, 430 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Griffin v. Mr. Fordyce Tatum, 425 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Ferrell v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1968)
- Vaughn v. Mun. Court, 393 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1968)
- Davis v. Firment, 408 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1969)