Buckel v. Prentice
| Decision Date | 28 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1838,76-1838 |
| Parties | William L. BUCKEL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Virginia E. PRENTICE et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas R. McGuire, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Leonard J. Schwartz, Schwartz, Fisher, Spater, McNamara & Marshall, Columbus, Ohio, for amicus curiae A. C. L. U.
Craig Denmead, Williams, Deeg, Ketcham, Obetz & Denmead, Lawrence H. Braun, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, LIVELY, Circuit Judge, and NEESE, District Judge. *
This case is on appeal from a summary judgment rendered in favor of Columbus, Ohio school personnel and officials. Reference is made to the opinion of District Judge Robert M. Duncan, reported at 410 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D.Ohio 1976), for a recitation of pertinent facts.
This litigation grew out of an unsuccessful effort by appellants to distribute a circular to parents of children enrolled at Kingswood Elementary School in Columbus. Appellants wanted to distribute the circular by having school children take it home to their parents. The materials were written by a parent, appellant William L. Buckel. On April 3, 1974, Buckel presented copies of the circular to the principal of the school for the purpose of distribution to homes via students. The principal refused to allow the children to take the materials home to their parents. The Superintendent of the Columbus City Schools and the Board of Education upheld the decision of the principal.
Appellants filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charging violation of their rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. It is contended that the school officials have created a public forum by permitting a wide variety of printed information to be sent home to parents via the school-age children, and that access to this public forum cannot be denied to appellants.
The district court found as follows:
(T)he distribution via students of information concerning coming theatrical events, home safety measures, and the like, is not indicative of the establishment of a forum for First Amendment purposes. Dissemination of such material is a logical and a proper extension of the educational function of schools in our society, and such dissemination does not of itself give rise to any right of access to student distribution by parents or other concerned citizens. 410 F.Supp. at 1247.
The district court also stated, "If plaintiffs were seeking to take issue with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taxation with Representation of Washington v. Regan
...speech and private speech in close cases. Compare Bonner-Lyons v. School Committee, 480 F.2d 442 (1st Cir. 1973) with Buckel v. Prentice, 572 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1978). See generally Perry Local Educators' Ass'n v. Hohlt, 652 F.2d 1286, 1292-96 (7th Cir. 1981); Emerson, supra note 23, at 831......
-
Perry Local Educators' Ass'n v. Hohlt
...the two kinds of speech in close cases. Compare Bonner-Lyons v. School Committee, 480 F.2d 442 (1st Cir. 1973), with Buckel v. Prentice, 572 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1978). But because the school district here did not even purport to endorse PEA's messages or adopt them as its own and indeed, req......
-
Hall v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County, Ala.
...1971); Nigosian v. Weiss, 343 F.Supp. 757 (E.D.Mich.1971); cf. Buckel v. Prentice, 410 F.Supp. 1243, 1247 (S.D.Ohio 1976), aff'd, 572 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1978) (use of students as messengers). But cf. Kingsville Indep. School Dist. v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. 1980) (certain clas......
-
Hall v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF MOBILE
...1971); Nigosian v. Weiss, 343 F.Supp. 757 (E.D.Mich. 1971); cf. Buckel v. Prentice, 410 F.Supp. 1243, 1247 (S.D.Ohio 1976), aff'd, 572 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1978) (use of students as messengers). But cf. Kingsville Indep. School Dist. v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. 1980) (certain cla......