Schema-Root.org logo

 

  cross-referenced news and research resources about

 Goss V Lopez

GOSS ET AL. v. LOPEZ ET AL. January 22, 1975





We do not believe that school authorities must be totally free from notice and hearing requirements if their schools are to operate with acceptable efficiency. Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school.

...

Schema-Root.org logo
images:  google   yahoo YouTube
spacer

updated Wed. April 3, 2024

-
In the decision Goss v. Lopez, the high court said schools aren't required to give students the right to a lawyer, to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to call their own witnesses. The letter cites that Supreme Court case as establishing that only public schools are required to provide notice of charges ...

The Supreme Court, in Goss v. Lopez (1975), held that public school students must be afforded due process before being deprived of their education. States do not have to provide a free public education, but those that do grant to students a legitimate entitlement to a public education that constitutes a ...
The question of whether a competent, terminally ill minor should have the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) is perhaps the most intimate, personal, and difficult decision a person could possibly face. While the concepts of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are undoubtedly ...
The plurality's understanding of the Due Process Clause in Hamdi accords with the Court's previous assertion in Goss v. Lopez that an individual ought to have “some kind of notice and some kind of hearing” before the government takes away his life, liberty, or property. In his Hamdi dissent, Justice Thomas ...
... they are governed by the New York State Charter Schools Act and the state constitution. They must also comply with federal law, including IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and Goss v. Lopez, a decision which regulates due process requirements for suspensions. The AFC report alleges ...
When I first looked at California's Yes Means Yes law, I thought it was ridiculous. The law redefines consent such that the everyday actions of loving couples would technically be unprosecuted assault. Meanwhile it did nothing to resolve the core problem in college sexual assault cases: one party says there ...
In 1975, in Goss v. Lopez, the Supreme Court found schoolchildren to have due process rights. “As a result, students can say to teachers with some authority, 'If you do that, my mom is going to sue you.' And that changes the score.” In Goss's wake, many educators moved toward what progressive education ...
This federal support took the form of the establishment of legal advocacy organizations that not only sued local public schools, but also devised legal strategies that resulted in the Supreme Court's Goss v. Lopez (1975) decision extending rudimentary due process rights to public school students who faced ...


 

news and opinion


 


 


 


 


schema-root.org

    usa
     government
      branches
       judicial branch
        supreme court
         decisions
          schools
            goss v lopez

US Supreme Court school decisions:
            bethel v. fraser
            brown v. board of education
            cooper v. aaron
            frederick v. morse
            goss v lopez
            hammond v. south carolina state
            hazelwood v. kuhlmeier
            ingraham v. wright
            meyer v. state of nebraska
            new jersey v. tlo
            poling v. murphy
            tinker v. des moines
            waugh v. board of trustees
            west virginia v. barnette