Wood v. Strickland
United States Supreme Court
420 U.S. 308, 95 S. Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1975)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Peggy Strickland and Virginia Crain (plaintiffs) (students) served spiked punch at an extracurricular school function. The students confessed their actions to the principal, who issued temporary suspensions and referred the matter to the school board. The members of the school board (defendants) held a meeting that day and issued the students suspensions for three months. The board later agreed to hold a second meeting, which the students and their attorneys attended, and decided to sustain the suspension. The students sued members of the school board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages for alleged violations of the students’ constitutional rights. The district court applied a subjective standard of liability requiring the students to show that the school board members acted with malice to be liable under § 1983. The district court held that, as a matter of law, there was no evidence to establish the requisite malice. The court of appeals held that the district court erred in applying the malice standard. The court of appeals held that school board officials could be held liable under § 1983 if, under an objective standard, a plaintiff could prove that a defendant did not act in good faith. The school board members appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.