People v. Bennett
Michigan Supreme Court
501 N.W.2d 106 (1993)
- Written by Ann Wooster, JD
Facts
John and Sandra Bennett (defendants) were the parents of four school-aged children in the State of Michigan (plaintiff). For nonreligious reasons, the Bennetts chose to enroll their children in a home-school instruction program. At the beginning of the school year, the Bennetts submitted individual curricula to the Plymouth-Canton School District, where the children had been attending school. The Bennetts claimed that they held class at home for all of their children five hours a day for five days a week during the entire school year. The children’s standardized achievement test results at the end of the year indicated that three of the four children were performing at or above their grade levels. The state charged the Bennetts with failing to send their children to school in violation of compulsory school-attendance and teacher-certification laws. The trial court found the Bennetts guilty and imposed a $50 fine for each count. The Bennetts appealed their convictions and claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed their fundamental right to direct the secular education of their children in the home-school instruction program free of reasonable regulation by the state. The appeals court affirmed the convictions. The Bennetts appealed this decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brickley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
