wood
strickland
argued
october
decided
february
respondent
arkansas
high
school
students
expelled
school
violating
school
regulation
prohibiting
use
possession
intoxicating
beverages
school
school
activities
brought
suit
petitioner
school
officials
claiming
expulsions
infringed
respondents
rights
due
process
seeking
damages
injunctive
declaratory
relief
district
directed
verdicts
petitioners
ground
immune
damages
suits
absent
proof
malice
sense
ill
toward
respondents
appeals
finding
facts
showed
violation
respondents
rights
substantive
due
process
since
decisions
expel
respondents
made
basis
evidence
regulation
violated
reversed
remanded
appropriate
injunctive
relief
new
trial
question
damages
held
basis
tradition
public
policy
school
officials
entitled
qualified
immunity
liability
damages
immune
liability
knew
reasonably
known
action
took
within
sphere
official
responsibility
violate
constitutional
rights
student
affected
took
action
malicious
intention
cause
deprivation
rights
injury
student
compensatory
award
appropriate
school
officials
acted
impermissible
motivation
disregard
student
clearly
established
constitutional
rights
action
reasonably
characterized
good
faith
pp
regulation
question
construed
record
shows
construed
responsible
school
officials
prohibit
use
possession
beverages
containing
alcohol
rather
erroneously
construed
appeals
refer
beverages
containing
excess
certain
alcoholic
content
absence
evidence
prove
charge
respondents
hence
appeals
contrary
judgment
improvident
section
extend
right
relitigate
federal
evidentiary
questions
arising
school
disciplinary
proceedings
proper
construction
school
regulations
intended
vehicle
correction
errors
exercise
school
officials
discretion
rise
level
violations
specific
constitutional
guarantees
pp
since
district
discuss
whether
procedural
due
process
violation
appeals
decide
issue
appeals
rather
consider
question
first
instance
pp
white
delivered
opinion
parts
iii
iv
members
joined
part
ii
douglas
brennan
stewart
marshall
joined
powell
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
burger
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
post
ross
smith
argued
cause
petitioners
brief
herschel
friday
ben
core
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
raymond
marks
filed
brief
childhood
government
project
amicus
curiae
justice
white
delivered
opinion
respondents
peggy
strickland
virginia
crain
brought
lawsuit
petitioners
members
school
board
time
question
two
school
administrators
special
school
district
mena
purporting
assert
cause
action
claiming
federal
constitutional
rights
due
process
infringed
color
state
law
expulsion
mena
public
high
school
grounds
violation
school
regulation
prohibiting
use
possession
intoxicating
beverages
school
school
activities
complaint
amended
prayed
compensatory
punitive
damages
petitioners
injunctive
relief
allowing
respondents
resume
attendance
preventing
petitioners
imposing
sanctions
result
expulsion
restraining
enforcement
challenged
regulation
declaratory
relief
constitutional
invalidity
regulation
expunction
record
expulsion
declaration
mistrial
arising
jury
failure
reach
verdict
district
directed
verdicts
favor
petitioners
ground
petitioners
immune
damages
suits
absent
proof
malice
sense
ill
toward
respondents
supp
wd
ark
appeals
finding
facts
showed
violation
respondents
rights
substantive
due
process
reversed
remanded
appropriate
injunctive
relief
new
trial
question
damages
petition
rehearing
en
banc
denied
three
judges
dissenting
see
certiorari
granted
consider
whether
application
due
process
appeals
warranted
whether
expression
standard
governing
immunity
school
board
members
liability
compensatory
damages
correct
one
violation
school
regulation
prohibiting
use
possession
intoxicating
beverages
school
school
activities
respondents
charged
concerned
spiking
punch
served
meeting
extracurricular
school
organization
attended
parents
students
time
question
respondents
years
old
grade
relevant
facts
begin
discovery
punch
prepared
meeting
previously
planned
girls
agreed
spike
since
county
school
located
dry
respondents
third
girl
drove
across
state
border
oklahoma
purchased
two
bottles
right
time
malt
liquor
bought
six
bottles
soft
drink
mixed
contents
eight
bottles
empty
milk
carton
returned
school
prior
meeting
girls
experienced
second
thoughts
wisdom
prank
caught
force
events
intervention
girls
prevented
disposing
illicit
punch
punch
served
meeting
without
apparent
effect
ten
days
later
teacher
charge
extracurricular
group
meeting
curtis
powell
heard
something
spiking
questioned
girls
although
first
denying
knowledge
girls
admitted
involvement
teacher
said
handle
punishment
next
day
however
told
girls
incident
becoming
increasingly
subject
talk
school
principal
waller
probably
hear
told
job
jeopardy
force
admit
waller
done
go
however
able
help
incident
became
distorted
three
girls
went
waller
admitted
role
affair
suspended
school
maximum
period
subject
decision
school
board
waller
also
told
board
meet
night
girls
tell
parents
meeting
parents
contact
members
board
neither
girls
parents
attended
school
board
meeting
night
powell
waller
making
reports
concerning
incident
recommended
leniency
point
telephone
call
received
inlow
superintendent
schools
powell
husband
also
teacher
high
school
reported
heard
third
girl
involved
fight
evening
basketball
game
inlow
informed
meeting
news
although
mention
name
girl
involved
powell
waller
withdrew
recommendations
leniency
board
voted
expel
girls
school
remainder
semester
period
approximately
three
months
board
subsequently
agreed
hold
another
meeting
matter
one
held
approximately
two
weeks
first
meeting
girls
parents
counsel
attended
session
board
began
reading
written
statement
facts
found
girls
admitted
mixing
malt
liquor
punch
intent
spiking
asked
board
forgo
rule
punishing
violations
substantial
suspensions
neither
powell
waller
present
meeting
board
voted
change
policy
expel
girls
remainder
semester
ii
district
instructed
jury
decision
respondents
premised
upon
finding
petitioners
acted
malice
expelling
defined
malice
meaning
ill
person
wrongful
act
done
intentionally
without
cause
excuse
ruling
petitioners
jury
unable
agree
district
found
matter
law
evidence
malice
inferred
appeals
however
viewed
instruction
decision
district
erroneous
specific
intent
harm
wrongfully
held
requirement
recovery
damages
instead
need
established
defendants
light
circumstances
act
good
faith
test
objective
rather
subjective
one
omitted
petitioners
members
school
board
assert
absolute
immunity
liability
least
seek
reinstate
judgment
district
correct
district
dismissal
sustained
need
go
case
moreover
immunity
question
involves
construction
federal
statute
practice
deal
possibly
dispositive
statutory
issues
reaching
questions
turning
construction
constitution
cf
hagans
lavine
essentially
sustain
position
appeals
respect
immunity
issue
nature
immunity
awards
damages
available
school
administrators
school
board
members
question
lower
federal
courts
answered
single
voice
general
agreement
existence
good
faith
immunity
courts
either
emphasized
different
factors
elements
good
faith
given
specific
content
standard
decided
three
cases
dealing
scope
immunity
protecting
various
types
governmental
officials
liability
damages
tenney
brandhove
question
found
one
essentially
statutory
construction
nothing
language
silent
respect
immunities
concluded
basis
believing
congress
intended
eliminate
traditional
immunity
legislators
civil
liability
acts
done
within
sphere
legislative
action
immunity
well
grounded
history
reason
absolute
consequently
depend
upon
motivations
legislators
pierson
ray
finding
legislative
record
gives
clear
indication
congress
meant
abolish
wholesale
immunities
enacting
concluded
doctrine
absolute
judicial
immunity
survived
similarly
preclude
application
traditional
rule
policeman
making
arrest
good
faith
probable
cause
liable
damages
although
person
arrested
proves
innocent
consequently
said
although
matter
entirely
free
doubt
consideration
seem
require
excusing
liability
acting
statute
reasonably
believed
valid
later
held
unconstitutional
face
applied
omitted
finally
last
term
held
chief
executive
officer
state
senior
subordinate
officers
state
national
guard
president
university
absolutely
immune
liability
instead
entitled
immunity
prior
precedent
light
obvious
need
avoid
discouraging
effective
official
action
public
officers
charged
considerable
range
responsibility
discretion
acted
good
faith
defined
varying
scope
qualified
immunity
available
officers
executive
branch
government
variation
dependent
upon
scope
discretion
responsibilities
office
circumstances
reasonably
appeared
time
action
liability
sought
based
existence
reasonable
grounds
belief
formed
time
light
circumstances
coupled
belief
affords
basis
qualified
immunity
executive
officers
acts
performed
course
official
conduct
scheuer
rhodes
facts
case
reveal
school
board
members
function
different
times
nature
legislators
adjudicators
school
disciplinary
process
functions
necessarily
involves
exercise
discretion
weighing
many
factors
formulation
policy
like
legislators
judges
officers
entitled
rely
traditional
sources
factual
information
decide
act
scheuer
rhodes
supra
omitted
executive
officers
faced
instances
civil
disorder
school
officials
confronted
student
behavior
causing
threatening
disruption
also
obvious
need
prompt
action
decisions
must
made
reliance
factual
information
supplied
others
ibid
liability
damages
every
action
found
subsequently
violative
student
constitutional
rights
caused
compensable
injury
unfairly
impose
upon
school
decisionmaker
burden
mistakes
made
good
faith
course
exercising
discretion
within
scope
official
duties
school
board
members
among
duties
must
judge
whether
violations
school
regulations
appropriate
sanctions
violations
denying
measure
immunity
circumstances
contribute
principled
fearless
intimidation
pierson
ray
supra
imposition
monetary
costs
mistakes
unreasonable
light
circumstances
undoubtedly
deter
even
conscientious
school
decisionmaker
exercising
judgment
independently
forcefully
manner
best
serving
interest
school
students
capable
candidates
school
board
positions
might
deterred
seeking
office
heavy
burdens
upon
private
resources
monetary
liability
likely
prospect
tenure
considerations
undoubtedly
played
prime
role
development
state
courts
qualified
immunity
protecting
school
officials
liability
damages
lawsuits
claiming
improper
suspensions
expulsions
time
judgment
implicit
development
absolute
immunity
justified
since
sufficiently
increase
ability
school
officials
exercise
discretion
forthright
manner
warrant
absence
remedy
students
subjected
intentional
otherwise
inexcusable
deprivations
tenney
brandhove
pierson
ray
scheuer
rhodes
drew
upon
similar
background
animated
similar
judgment
construing
absent
legislative
guidance
rely
sources
determining
whether
extent
school
officials
immune
damage
suits
think
must
degree
immunity
work
schools
go
forward
however
worded
immunity
must
public
school
officials
understand
action
taken
fulfillment
responsibilities
within
bounds
reason
circumstances
punished
need
exercise
discretion
undue
timidity
public
officials
whether
governors
mayors
police
legislators
judges
fail
make
decisions
needed
act
implement
decisions
made
fully
faithfully
perform
duties
offices
implicit
idea
officials
immunity
absolute
qualified
acts
recognition
may
err
concept
immunity
assumes
goes
assume
better
risk
error
possible
injury
error
decide
act
scheuer
rhodes
omitted
iii
appeals
based
upon
review
facts
without
benefit
transcript
testimony
given
trial
jury
district
found
board
made
decision
expel
girls
basis
evidence
school
regulation
violated
justify
suspension
necessary
board
establish
students
possessed
used
intoxicating
beverage
activity
evidence
presented
either
meeting
establish
alcoholic
content
liquid
brought
campus
moreover
board
made
finding
liquid
intoxicating
evidence
nature
drink
supplied
girls
clear
know
whether
beverage
intoxicating
appeals
interpreted
school
regulation
prohibiting
use
possession
intoxicating
beverages
linked
definition
intoxicating
liquor
arkansas
statutes
restrict
term
beverages
alcoholic
content
exceeding
weight
testimony
trial
however
established
convincingly
term
intoxicating
beverage
school
regulation
intended
time
adoption
linked
definition
state
statutes
technical
definition
intoxicating
adoption
regulation
time
school
board
concerned
previous
episode
applied
prior
respondents
case
another
student
charged
possession
beer
statement
facts
issued
prior
onset
litigation
school
board
expressed
construction
regulation
finding
girls
brought
alcoholic
beverage
onto
school
premises
girls
admitted
knowing
time
incident
something
wrong
might
punished
light
evidence
appeals
ill
advised
supplant
interpretation
regulation
officers
adopted
entrusted
enforcement
cf
grayned
city
rockford
regulation
construed
prohibit
use
possession
beverages
containing
alcohol
absence
evidence
school
board
prove
charge
respondents
girls
admitted
intended
spike
punch
mixed
malt
liquor
punch
served
third
girl
estimated
time
admissions
waller
malt
liquor
alcohol
content
expulsion
decision
made
litigation
begun
conclusively
determined
malt
liquor
fact
alcohol
content
exceeding
weight
testimony
trial
put
alcohol
content
punch
served
given
fact
evidence
supporting
charge
respondents
contrary
judgment
appeals
improvident
role
federal
courts
set
aside
decisions
school
administrators
may
view
lacking
basis
wisdom
compassion
public
high
school
students
substantive
procedural
rights
school
see
tinker
des
moines
independent
community
school
district
west
virginia
state
board
education
barnette
goss
lopez
extend
right
relitigate
federal
evidentiary
questions
arising
school
disciplinary
proceedings
proper
construction
school
regulations
system
public
education
evolved
nation
relies
necessarily
upon
discretion
judgment
school
administrators
school
board
members
intended
vehicle
corrections
errors
exercise
discretion
rise
level
violations
specific
constitutional
guarantees
see
epperson
arkansas
tinker
supra
iv
respondents
complaint
alleged
procedural
due
process
rights
violated
action
taken
petitioners
app
district
discuss
claim
final
opinion
appeals
viewed
presenting
substantial
question
concluded
girls
denied
procedural
due
process
first
school
board
meeting
also
intimated
second
meeting
may
cured
initial
procedural
deficiencies
found
substantive
due
process
violation
however
reach
conclusion
procedural
issue
respondents
argued
procedural
due
process
violation
also
supports
result
reached
appeals
brief
respondents
district
discuss
appeals
decide
preferable
appeals
consider
issue
first
instance
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
appeals
noted
reinstatement
longer
possible
since
term
expulsion
ended
respondents
entitled
records
expulsions
expunged
relieved
continuing
punishment
suspension
valid
causes
suspension
school
first
offense
pupils
found
guilty
following
shall
suspended
school
first
offense
balance
semester
suspension
noted
permanent
record
student
along
reason
suspension
use
intoxicating
beverage
possession
school
school
sponsored
activity
app
facts
found
school
board
virginia
crain
peggy
strickland
jo
wall
students
mena
high
school
subject
governing
rules
policies
mena
high
school
february
three
girls
charged
responsibility
providing
refreshments
school
function
gathering
students
home
economic
class
parents
school
premises
auditorium
building
mena
high
school
direction
curtis
powell
three
girls
question
traveled
oklahoma
purchased
number
bottles
malt
liquor
beer
type
beverage
later
went
onto
school
premises
alcoholic
beverage
put
two
bottles
drink
punch
liquid
refreshment
served
members
class
parents
app
taking
correspondence
course
extra
course
later
girls
able
graduate
class
tr
oral
arg
original
complaint
respondents
sought
injunctive
declaratory
relief
app
amended
complaint
added
prayer
compensatory
punitive
damages
trial
jury
district
ruling
motions
declaring
mistrial
appears
treated
case
developed
one
damages
since
entered
judgment
petitioners
dismissed
complaint
basis
defense
joint
motion
new
trial
respondents
specifically
argued
district
erred
treating
case
one
recovery
damages
failing
give
trial
ruling
claims
injunctive
declaratory
relief
district
denied
motion
upon
appeal
respondents
renewed
contentions
appeals
finding
substantive
due
process
violation
directed
district
give
respondents
injunction
requiring
expunction
expulsion
records
restraining
continuing
punishment
petitioners
urge
reverse
appeals
order
complaint
dismissed
brief
petitioners
respondents
however
stress
relief
sought
included
equitable
relief
brief
respondents
light
record
case
uncertain
basis
district
judgment
immunity
damages
ordinarily
bar
equitable
relief
well
opinion
appeals
entirely
dispel
uncertainty
case
posture
better
course
proceed
directly
question
immunity
school
board
members
mclaughlin
tilendis
case
relied
upon
appeals
immunity
extended
school
board
members
superintendent
schools
extent
establish
decisions
founded
justifiable
grounds
cf
scoville
board
ed
joliet
township
cert
denied
smith
losee
en
banc
cert
denied
immunity
protecting
university
officials
described
one
good
faith
absence
malice
facts
officials
showed
good
valid
reason
decision
although
another
reason
reasons
advanced
nonrenewal
discharge
may
constitutionally
impermissible
district
kirstein
rector
visitors
university
virginia
supp
ed
extended
immunity
action
taken
good
faith
accordance
long
standing
legal
principle
see
also
skehan
board
trustees
bloomsburg
state
college
handverger
harvill
cert
denied
wood
goodman
supp
mass
thonen
jenkins
supp
ednc
taliaferro
state
council
higher
education
supp
ed
vanderzanden
lowell
school
district
supp
jones
jefferson
county
board
education
supp
ed
adamian
university
nevada
supp
boyd
smith
supp
nd
ind
hayes
cape
henlopen
school
district
supp
del
schreiber
joint
school
district
gibraltar
supp
ed
endicott
van
petten
supp
holliman
martin
supp
wd
mcdonough
kelly
supp
nh
cordova
chonko
supp
nd
ohio
gouge
joint
school
district
supp
wd
congress
general
language
statute
mean
overturn
tradition
legislative
freedom
achieved
england
civil
war
carefully
preserved
formation
state
national
governments
mean
subject
legislators
civil
liability
acts
done
within
sphere
legislative
activity
let
us
assume
merely
moment
congress
constitutional
power
limit
freedom
state
legislators
acting
within
traditional
sphere
big
assumption
make
even
rasher
assumption
find
congress
thought
exercised
power
difficulties
hurdle
limits
statute
spelled
debate
believe
congress
staunch
advocate
legislative
freedom
impinge
tradition
well
grounded
history
reason
covert
inclusion
general
language
us
see
donahoe
richards
dritt
snodgrass
mo
mccormick
burt
board
education
cartersville
purse
board
ed
city
covington
booth
morrison
city
lawrence
mass
sorrels
matthews
douglass
campbell
ark
barnard
shelburne
mass
sweeney
young
absolute
immunity
acts
taken
within
range
general
authority
see
also
jur
schools
pp
schools
school
districts
prosser
law
torts
ed
hamilton
reutter
legal
aspects
school
board
operation
see
generally
campbell
cunningham
mcphee
organization
control
american
schools
overwhelming
majority
school
board
members
elected
office
see
white
local
school
boards
organization
practices
office
education
bulletin
national
school
boards
association
survey
public
education
member
cities
council
big
city
boards
education
campbell
cunningham
mcphee
supra
school
board
members
across
country
receive
little
monetary
compensation
service
white
supra
national
school
boards
association
supra
campbell
cunningham
mcphee
supra
school
directors
authorized
duty
adopt
reasonable
rules
government
management
school
deter
responsible
suitable
men
accepting
position
held
liable
damages
pupil
expelled
rule
adopted
impression
welfare
school
demanded
courts
deem
improper
dritt
snodgrass
time
appeals
decision
testimony
trial
jury
transcribed
counsel
concern
limiting
litigation
costs
tr
oral
arg
transcript
filed
district
certiorari
granted
app
see
also
vachon
new
hampshire
gregory
chicago
johnson
florida
shuttlesworth
city
birmingham
garner
louisiana
cf
boilermakers
hardeman
say
requirements
procedural
due
process
attach
expulsions
past
years
courts
appeals
without
exception
held
procedural
due
process
requirements
must
satisfied
student
expelled
see
goss
lopez
see
ark
stat
ann
appeals
referred
comments
seemed
also
adopt
construction
made
district
findings
fact
denied
respondents
motion
preliminary
injunction
app
noting
district
initial
view
petitioners
find
difficult
prove
requisite
alcoholic
content
appeals
expressed
puzzlement
failure
lower
discuss
absence
evidence
final
opinion
district
however
indicated
instructions
question
proper
construction
regulation
relevant
jury
found
school
officials
good
faith
considered
malt
liquor
punch
fall
within
regulation
district
ultimate
conclusion
apparently
made
unnecessary
final
decision
coverage
regulation
despite
construction
present
regulation
appeals
indicated
school
board
authority
prohibit
use
possession
alcoholic
beverages
continue
policy
proscribing
intoxicating
beverages
two
members
school
board
time
regulation
adopted
testified
discussion
tying
regulation
state
alcohol
control
act
intent
board
members
cover
beer
tr
testimony
petitioner
wood
testimony
gerald
goforth
see
minutes
board
meeting
regulation
adopted
app
see
also
tr
testimony
mary
spencer
also
board
member
regulation
adopted
goforth
student
suspended
october
possession
beer
school
activity
indication
record
alcoholic
content
beer
see
tr
testimony
former
superintendent
inlow
see
supra
soon
litigation
begun
board
issued
statement
said
regulation
prohibits
use
possession
alcoholic
beverage
school
premises
app
see
tr
strickland
crain
percentage
content
established
deposition
officer
company
produces
right
time
malt
liquor
app
tr
testimony
turner
justice
powell
chief
justice
justice
blackmun
justice
rehnquist
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
parts
iii
iv
opinion
agree
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
dissent
part
ii
appears
impose
higher
standard
care
upon
public
school
officials
sued
heretofore
required
official
holding
immunity
issue
set
forth
margin
impose
personal
liability
school
official
acted
sincerely
utmost
good
faith
found
fact
acted
ignorance
settled
indisputable
law
ante
also
puts
school
official
must
held
standard
conduct
based
good
faith
also
knowledge
basic
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
charges
ante
moreover
ignorance
law
explicitly
equated
actual
malice
ante
harsh
standard
requiring
knowledge
characterized
settled
indisputable
law
leaves
little
substance
doctrine
qualified
immunity
decision
appears
rest
unwarranted
assumption
lay
school
officials
know
know
law
constitutional
rights
officials
act
peril
judge
jury
subsequently
finding
belief
applicable
law
mistaken
hence
actionable
standard
required
knowledge
two
cryptic
phrases
settled
indisputable
law
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
presumably
intended
mean
thing
although
meaning
neither
phrase
likely
constitutional
law
scholars
much
less
average
school
board
member
one
need
look
decisions
reversals
recognition
evolving
concepts
splits
recognize
hazard
even
informed
prophecy
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
consider
example
recent
decision
goss
lopez
holding
junior
high
school
pupil
routinely
suspended
much
single
day
entitled
due
process
suggest
lawyers
judges
thought
prior
decision
law
contrary
settled
indisputable
unquestioned
less
year
ago
scheuer
rhodes
opinion
joined
participating
members
considerably
less
demanding
standard
liability
approved
respect
two
highest
officers
state
governor
adjutant
general
case
estates
students
killed
kent
state
university
sued
officials
weighing
competing
claims
concluded
considerations
suggest
varying
scope
qualified
immunity
available
officers
executive
branch
government
variation
dependent
upon
scope
discretion
responsibilities
office
circumstances
reasonably
appeared
time
action
liability
sought
based
existence
reasonable
grounds
belief
formed
time
light
circumstances
coupled
belief
affords
basis
qualified
immunity
executive
officers
acts
performed
course
official
conduct
emphasis
added
school
boards
five
members
thousands
school
superintendents
school
principals
school
board
members
popularly
elected
drawn
citizenry
large
possess
unique
competency
divining
law
cities
counties
provide
compensation
service
school
boards
often
difficult
persuade
qualified
persons
assume
burdens
important
function
society
moreover
even
counsel
advice
constitutes
defense
may
safely
assumed
school
boards
school
officials
ready
access
counsel
indeed
deemed
necessary
consult
counsel
countless
decisions
necessarily
must
made
operation
public
schools
view
today
decision
significantly
enhancing
possibility
personal
liability
one
must
wonder
whether
qualified
persons
continue
desired
numbers
volunteer
service
public
education
disagreement
appeals
district
immunity
standard
case
put
terms
objective
versus
subjective
test
good
faith
see
appropriate
standard
necessarily
contains
elements
official
must
acting
sincerely
belief
right
act
violating
student
constitutional
rights
justified
ignorance
disregard
settled
indisputable
law
part
one
entrusted
supervision
student
daily
lives
presence
actual
malice
entitled
special
exemption
categorical
remedial
language
case
action
violated
student
constitutional
rights
school
board
member
voluntarily
undertaken
task
supervising
operation
school
activities
students
must
held
standard
conduct
based
permissible
intentions
also
knowledge
basic
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
charges
standard
neither
imposes
unfair
burden
upon
person
assuming
responsible
public
office
requiring
high
degree
intelligence
judgment
proper
fulfillment
duties
unwarranted
burden
light
value
civil
rights
legal
system
lesser
standard
deny
much
promise
therefore
specific
context
school
discipline
hold
school
board
member
immune
liability
damages
knew
reasonably
known
action
took
within
sphere
official
responsibility
violate
constitutional
rights
student
affected
took
action
malicious
intention
cause
deprivation
constitutional
rights
injury
student
say
school
board
members
charged
predicting
future
course
constitutional
law
pierson
ray
compensatory
award
appropriate
school
board
member
acted
impermissible
motivation
disregard
student
clearly
established
constitutional
rights
action
reasonably
characterized
good
faith
ante
opinion
indicates
actual
malice
presumed
one
acts
ignorance
law
thus
appear
even
reliance
advice
counsel
avail
rationale
goss
suggests
example
school
officials
may
infringe
student
right
education
place
track
deny
promotion
class
without
affording
due
process
hearing
see
powell
dissenting
mean
school
officials
fail
provide
hearings
future
liable
subsequently
determines
required
another
current
example
unsettled
constitutional
law
deemed
least
quite
settled
may
turn
see
decision
opinions
north
georgia
finishing
compare
justice
stewart
dissent
mitchell
grant
decision
scheuer
respect
qualified
immunity
consistent
chief
justice
warren
opinion
pierson
ray
said
jury
believed
testimony
officers
disbelieved
ministers
jury
found
officers
reasonably
believed
good
faith
arrest
constitutional
verdict
officers
follow
even
though
arrest
fact
unconstitutional
scheuer
standard
prescribed
one
acting
good
faith
accordance
reasonable
belief
action
lawful
justified
even
police
officers
held
liable
ignorance
settled
indisputable
law