Immediato v. Rye Neck School District

Immediato v. Rye Neck School District
Immediato v. Rye Neck School District
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name	Daniel Immediato, et al v. Rye Neck School District, et al
Argued	October 10, 1995
Decided	January 2, 1996
Citation(s)	73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996); 64 USLW 2443; 106 Ed. Law Rep. 85
Case history
Prior action(s)	873 F. Supp. 846 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Jon O. Newman, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Pierre N. Leval
Case opinions
Majority	McLaughlin, joined by Newman, Leval
Laws applied
	Thirteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment;

Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996)[1] was a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the petitioner, a boy named Daniel Immediato and his parents, Eugene and Diane Immediato, against the respondent, Rye Neck School District in the village of Mamaroneck, New York. The court held that the school district did not violate Immediato's rights by requiring him to perform community service.

Background

Daniel Immediato felt that the school district's policy of establishing mandatory community service was in violation of his 13th and 14th Amendment rights. The school district required that 40 hours of community service be completed to graduate with no exceptions. Regulations on what could be done for community service were fairly lax, as all work for non-profit organizations with the exception of religious organizations that did no charitable work was accepted as community service. As part of a mandatory senior-year course, students had to complete a form about what community service they did and how it benefited them, and afterwards discuss it with the class. Certain goals had to be reached by certain periods of the senior year.

Complaint

Immediato brought forth the following charges: "Specifically, they assert that the program: (1) imposes involuntary servitude upon Daniel, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment; (2) infringes on Daniel's parents' Fourteenth Amendment right to direct his upbringing and education; (3) infringes on Daniel's personal liberty, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) violates Daniel's right to privacy, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment."[1]

Result

The school district denied that any violation was made and argued that the court should abstain because of the ruling of Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (that federal court should not hear any case involving complicated state laws that deal with policy issues)[2]. The court decided against this Burford abstention but found that none of the charges were true. Immediato proceeded to appeal using the same charges. Immediato's arguments were found to be invalid, and the court stuck with their ruling that the school district did not violate any of Daniel or his parents' Constitutional rights in imposing community service.

gollark: Yes, they can read the code, but they *cannot know* what the server is doing.

gollark: And there's no sensible reason to play this. The expected value is (slightly) negative.

gollark: They can't really test for subtle bias.

gollark: Open source does not guarantee what the server is actually running.

gollark: Why would anyone trust the lottery thing? Or use it at all, even.

References

Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996).
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943).

External links

Text of Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Leagle OpenJurist

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[COA-1] Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996).

[2] Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943).