Barker v. Hardway, 12600.
| Decision Date | 03 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 12600.,12600. |
| Parties | Allen F. BARKER, Donald Steven Hill, Thomas Malone, Terry Miller, Charles E. Newbold, Carmen Pilgrim, Alonzo Saunders, Albert Smith, Sharon Maria Smith, and Alan Scott Tucker, Individually and in Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. Wendell G. HARDWAY, President of Bluefield State College; J. I. Turner, Dean of Men of Bluefield State College; Wanda Moore, Dean of Women of Bluefield State College; and West Virginia State Board of Education, a Public Body Corporate, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Herbert H. Henderson, Huntington, W. Va., and Lewis M. Steel, New York City, (Robert L. Carter and Anne Gross Feldman, New York City, on brief) for appellants.
Leo Catsonis, Asst. Atty. Gen., of West Virginia (Jerome Katz, Bluefield, W. Va., Special Counsel, on brief) for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
After the appellants, students at Bluefield State College, violently protested the policies of the college's administrative officers, they were suspended. The district judge refused to order their reinstatement setting forth his reasons in an opinion which we find to be supported by the record and to apply correct principles of law. Barker v. Hardway, 283 F.Supp. 228 (S.D.W.Va.1968).
We believe the district judge correctly concluded that the administrative appeals which the college afforded the students satisfied the requirements of due process of law. In any event, the district judge granted them a plenary, de novo hearing with counsel. It was upon evidence received at this hearing that he based his own findings concerning the conduct that lead to their suspension. The proceedings in the district court render moot the students' contention that they were denied due process at the college level.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri
...to be heard granted, should there be a trial de novo on the same factual issues in a federal civil rights action? Barker v. Hardway (C.A. 4) 399 F.2d 638, cert. denied, 394 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1009, 22 L.Ed.2d 217, cited in the Esteban dissent for the affirmative answer to this question fall......
-
State v. Berrill
...v. Hardway, 283 F.Supp. 228, 238-39 (S.D.W.Va.1968) (quoting Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579, 586 (4th Cir.1964)), aff'd, 399 F.2d 638 (4th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1009, 22 L.Ed.2d 217 [196 W.Va. 584] orderly and peaceful process of political subdivisions. B......
-
Esteban v. Central Missouri State College
...and what is not, is also apparent in the Court's denial of certiorari, 394 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1009, 22 L.Ed.2d 217, in Barker v. Hardway, 399 F.2d 638 (4 Cir. 1968), a per curiam opinion which in turn had affirmed the dismissal of an action to enjoin enforcement of suspension of state colle......
-
Norton v. Discipline Committee of East Tenn. State Univ., 19107.
...hearing in the District Court with counsel. Their contention of a denial of due process was thereby rendered moot. Barker v. Hardway, 399 F.2d 638 (4th Cir.1968). Finally, it should be emphasized that appellants were not expelled from the University, but were merely suspended. The differenc......