Web Search About Cases of Teachers
Title of the Case: McGee, Appellant, vs. I. S. D. No. 361 and Jon Alan Pearson, defendants. [State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals c7-97-2000.]
General application to appropriate and inappropriate teacher conduct was considered in details by one of best online essay writing services.
The conduct of the teacher in this case is very inappropriate since he sexually-abused the student who had a behavioral problem. As a result, the victim’s family filed a case against the teacher named John Alan Pearson (Findlaw, 2008). The case was accompanied with demand for damages and founded on the grounds of respondeat superior, negligence, assault against the student, and for causing intentional infliction of emotional problems (Findlaw, 2008).
Essay editors carefully explored issues involved in the case. The issues involved in the case are whether or not the school district is liable for a teacher’s torts that are intentional. The victim also moved that the trial court wrongly resolved the factual issues and abuse of discretion by not granting the motion for continuance filed by him (Findlaw, 2008).
Ruling in the case might casing troubles for writing a decent paper, though if you are looking for service writing essays for money you are definitely on the right trail.
The ruling of the case provides that there is no liability for a school district on account of a teacher who committed an intentional wrong against a student (Findlaw, 2008). The ruling would still apply although the immoral act happened within boundaries of work-related things (Findlaw, 2008). The act of Pearson is not also foreseeable and is not related to the duty of a teacher in order to fall in the exception. Even though the Rule 56.05 affidavit has only a conclusion statement that there has been deficient time to complete findings and the court is disinclined to overturn an exercise of its discretion, the court conclude discovery on the concern of the school’s inquiry of McGee’s 1986 complaint will expose substantial facts (Findlaw, 2008). Because of that, the Honorable concluded that the lower court was wrong in not exercising proper discretion by not granting the motion for continuance filed by McGee. In these situations, we conclude the trial court abused the available prudence by refusing to grant McGee, the victim, a continuance to conduct additional discovery (Findlaw, 2008).
Comments on the case
The case is an example of fully protecting an innocent student in school. The decision is proper since it is an act of compassion for children who had emotional problems. The inappropriateness of the teacher’s behavior must be punished in accordance with law.
Brief summary of the other two cases
There will be two cases to be discussed in this page. The first one is the case of Moses in representation of her underage son, Appellant v. Minneapolis Public Schools, respondent. The appellant has a minor son who is suffering of congenital myopathy or weakening of the muscles (Findlaw, 2008). By means of agreement, the Jefferson Elementary School allowed her son to be accepted in the school knowing the said physical defect of her son. The case started when there was a fire drill in the school. It was found out that the appellant’s son was injured due to the inability of a teacher to protect her son. Because of that, the mother of the minor son filed a case against the Special School District. The issue of the case is that whether or not the teacher is liable for the different injuries of the appellant’s son including what had happened after the school’s fire drill. The decision of the court is that the conduct of the teacher during the fire drill does not involve a ministerial duty which is not protected by official immunity (Findlaw, 2008). The appellant is also wrong in not providing support to her claims against the teacher and indirectly of the school district.
The second case is New Jersey v. T.L.O that was decided in the year 1985. The case is just simple. It happened in the school where a minor student’s attention was called by the teacher for he was suspected in using cigarettes (“Key Excerpts from Majority Opinion”). The teacher demanded to the student that he should be searched for used cigarettes. The issue of the case is whether or not prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to officials in a public school. The decision of the honorable court was that if there is reasonable ground to believe that the student is really bringing contraband, a school official may search the student even without a warrant. The case provided that the search conducted by the teachers is proper since there was a reasonable ground to believe that a contraband was owned by the student (“Key Excerpts from Majority Opinion”).
References
Findlaw. (2008). McGee, Appellant, vs. I. S. D. No. 361, Respondent, Jon Alan Pearson, defendant. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C9803%5C2000&invol=1.
Findlaw. (2008). Lydia M. Moses on behalf of her minor son, Appellant v. Minneapolis Public Schools, respondent. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://caselaw.lp.
findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C9812%5C1073&invol=1.
Landmark Cases. Key Excerpts from Majority Opinion: New Jersey v. T.L.O. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.landmarkcases.org/newjersey/majority.html.
Tags:
Category: Essay Examples
← Previous post
