Analyzing a
Court Decision
An overview of Out of School
presented by Bart Fennemore
Out-of-School Offenses
Case: Tibbs v. Board of Education of the Township of
Court: 276 A.2d 165 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1971)
 Students were assaulted outside of school
 Court agreed that the school can punish students for
out-of-school physical abuse to others.
 Expulsion is not permitted based on unsigned and
unidentified statements from student witnesses.
Case: McLean Independent School District v. Andrews
Court: 333 S.W.2d 886 (Tx. Civ. App. 1960)
 Student suspended for parking off campus which
violated school policy.
 Court upheld the suspension on the basis of
promoting the safety of student pedestrians.
Out-of-School Offenses
Case: McNaughton v. Circleville Board of Education
Court: 345 N.E.2d 649 (Ohio Comm. Pleas 1974 an
appellate court)
 Students suspended from school and extracurricular
activities for hazing new students of an official school
club off school grounds.
 The faculty advisor was not present for nor had
knowledge of the initiation.
Case: Warren v. National Association of Secondary
School Principals
Court: 375 F.Supp. 1043 (Tex. 1974) pp. 196
 Student was dismissed from National Honor Society
for drinking.
 Due process was not given and the student was reinstated
and the incident was expunged from his record.
Out-of-School Offenses
Case: R.R. v. Board of Education of the Shore Regional
High School District
Court: 263 A.2d 180 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Ch. Div. 1970)
 Allowed to expel or suspend students for out-of-school
incidents for physical and emotional safety or wellbeing of student as well as others in their contact.
 Student readmitted because due process was violated.
Case: S. v. Board of Education, san Francisco Unified
School District
Court: 97 Cal. Rptr. 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)
 Court upheld a suspension that did not distinguish
between events that occurred on campus or off.
Out-of-School Offenses
Case: Caldwell v. Cannady
Court: 340 F. Supp. 835 (Tex. 1972)
 “Upheld the reasonableness of a local school board
policy mandating the expulsion of any student
possessing, using, or selling dangerous or narcotic
Case: Clements v. Board of Trustees of the Sheridan
County School District No. 2
Court: 585 P.2d 197 (Wyo. 1978 – Supreme Court of
 “Court held that school authorities may discipline
pupils for out-of-school conduct having a direct or
immediate effect on the discipline or general welfare
of the school.”
Issue of Double Jeopardy
Courts have allowed for both judicial
and school sanctions without violation
of the Fifth Amendment as the court
serves punitive effects and school have
civil or remedial effects that protect the
school environment.