Arthur Nickolas Newsome v. Batavia Local School District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the necessity of protecting the anonymity of student witnesses justified the exclusion of the accused student
• concluding that the burdens of cross examination outweighed the benefits, as administrators are not well-equipped to oversee the process of cross examination
• holding that “the participation of the school principal and the superintendent in the closed deliberations of the school board when [an expelled student] and his counsel were not allowed to attend” did not violate due process
• observing that the Supreme Court “has specifically left open the question of what process is due in long-term suspensions (suspensions exceeding ten days) and expulsion cases”
• noting that defendant did “not raise the issue of whether [plaintiff] had Article III standing,” nonetheless “reach[ing] the issue sua sponte,” and concluding that plaintiff “lack[ed] article III standing to seek an injunction”
• establishing that Goss sets the minimum requirements for school expulsions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).