Casey County Bd. of Ed. v. Luster
| Decision Date | 23 September 1955 |
| Citation | 282 S.W.2d 333 |
| Parties | CASEY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellants, v. C. T. LUSTER, as the Father of Cecil Luster, an Infant Age 13, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Moore & Pittman, Liberty, for appellants.
L. C. Lawrence, Jamestown, for appellees.
The question for determination is the legality of a rule promulgated by the Principal of the Middleburg Public School in Casey County which provides:
'No one, while in school, shall be allowed to enter the restaurant of Mr. Russell or any other business establishment in the town without permission from 8:15 A.M. until 3:00 P.M.'
The trial judge in a written opinion held this rule was arbitrary, therefore void, and enjoined the County Board of Education and the Principal from enforcing it.
The school operated a lunchroom where children able to pay obtained their lunches for twenty cents and no charge was made against indigent ones. Children who resided near the school, upon the request of their parents, were permitted to go home for lunch.
A Mr. Russell operated a cafe immediately adjoining the playground from which the children could be served without leaving the school premises. It is not denied the rule was put in effect to prevent these children from buying food at this cafe and to encourage those who purchased their lunches to do so at the school lunchroom.
C. T. Luster, a citizen and taxpayer of Casey County, had two children in the school and persisted in taking them to the Russell cafe, or in letting them go there, for lunch. On September 14, 1953, the Principal wrote Mr. Luster to the effect that because he was 'continuing to force his children to disobey the school regulation' and allowing them to go to Russell's cafe during school hours, the members of the County Board of Education, the Superintendent and Principal were suspending his two children from school; but they would be automatically reinstated upon complying with the school regulation.
It is provided in KRS 158.150: 'All pupils admitted to the common schools shall comply with the lawful regulations for the government of the schools'; and for willful disobedience may be suspended or expelled; but before a pupil may be expelled his parents or guardian, or whoever has legal control or custody of the child, must be given an opportunity to have a hearing before the Board. We quote KRS 161.180: 'Each teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct in school, on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, and during intermission or recess.'
These statutes plainly authorize public schools to make and enforce reasonable regulations for the government of such schools during school hours.
It is essential that power be vested in some recognized agency in order to maintain discipline and efficiency in public schools. Those in charge of such institutions have a right to formulate such necessary rules as in their judgment will best promote the public good. Teachers and officials of public schools, who in a general way stand in loco parentis to their pupils, are better qualified to judge of the wisdom of such rules and regulations than are the courts. The only concern of the courts is to determine whether the school rules and regulations are reasonable or whether they are arbitrary. The law commits the government and conduct of public schools, in general, to the discretion of the school board and places same beyond that of the patrons. The courts will not interfere with the discretion of school authorities in the rules they may promulgate unless it appears they have acted arbitrarily or maliciously. Board of Education of City of Covington v. Booth, 110 Ky. 807, 62 S.W. 872, 23 Ky.Law Rep. 288, 53 L.R.A. 787; Cross v. Board of Trustees of Walton Graded Common School, 129 Ky. 35, 110 S.W. 346, 33 Ky.Law Rep. 472; Byrd v. Begley, 262 Ky. 422, 90 S.W.2d 370.
This appears to be the general rule as is shown by an examination of Christian v. Jones, 211 Ala. 161, 100 So. 99, 32 A.L.R. 1340; Flory v. Smith, 145 Va. 164, 134 S.E. 360, 48 A.L.R. 654;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petrey v. Flaugher
...not even in the largest majority." See, e. g., Board of Education v. Bently, Ky., 383 S.W.2d 677 (1964); Casey County Board of Education v. Luster, Ky., 282 S.W.2d 333 (1955). Cf. Morris v. City of Catlettsburg, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 753 (1969). 18 See Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.......
-
Crager v. Board of Educ. of Knott County, Ky., CIV.A. 7:04-155-DCR.
...enacted an "in loco parentis" statute, Kentucky courts have recognized teachers' in loco parentis status. See Casey County Bd. of Educ. v. Luster, 282 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Ky.1955) (noting that teachers generally stand in loco parentis to their students). Kentucky additionally requires teachers......
-
International Broth. of Firemen and Oilers, Local 320 v. Board of Ed. of Jefferson County
...acted arbitrarily or maliciously. Board of Education of Harrodsburg v. Bentley, Ky., 383 S.W.2d 677 (1964); Casey County Board of Education v. Luster, Ky., 282 S.W.2d 333 (1955). The adoption of a grievance procedure is clearly within the authority granted a school board by KRS 160.290. Emp......
-
Board of Ed. of Harrodsburg v. Bentley
...with the board's exercise of such discretion unless it appears the board has acted arbitrarily or maliciously. Casey County Bd. of Ed. v. Luster, Ky., 282 S.W.2d 333, and authorities therein It is also recognized by all that KRS 158.100 mandatorily directs that each board of education shall......