Meyer v. Austin Independent School District

Fifth Circuit

Meyer v. Austin Independent School District

167 F.3d 887, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 1999 WL 61618

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

Docket97-50561

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F.3d 887 (Meyer v. Austin Independent School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Austin Independent School District, 167 F.3d 887, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 1999 WL 61618 (5th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before KING, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

The appellants seek rehearing, contending we held that a principal would “lose qualified immunity simply because he mistakenly assumes that a parent’s defense of his or her child reflects the child’s side of the story,” and that “if a school administrator gives a parent an opportunity to defend his or her child, but later the child contends he or she would have told a different story, that school administrator will be personally liable for money damages.” We did not hold that. To the contrary, we held that procedural due process is satisfied where there is a meaningful opportunity to tell the child’s side of the story. Of course, an administrator’s speaking with a parent will not create a meaningful opportunity in every case. Thus, for example, here plaintiffs contend that various administrators merely informed the parents of what had happened and the discipline already imposed and gave the parents no meaningful opportunity to explain or seek a different result. Whether such a meaningful opportunity existed here we do not assess. This we leave to the district court, as we must given the limited nature of our interlocutory review.

PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before KING, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

The appellants seek rehearing, contending we held that a principal would “lose qualified immunity simply because he mistakenly assumes that a parent’s defense of his or her child reflects the child’s side of the story,” and that “if a school administrator gives a parent an opportunity to defend his or her child, but later the child contends he or she would have told a different story, that school administrator will be personally liable for money damages.” We did not hold that. To the contrary, we held that procedural due process is satisfied where there is a meaningful opportunity to tell the child’s side of the story. Of course, an administrator’s speaking with a parent will not create a meaningful opportunity in every case. Thus, for example, here plaintiffs contend that various administrators merely informed the parents of what had happened and the discipline already imposed and gave the parents no meaningful opportunity to explain or seek a different result. Whether such a meaningful opportunity existed here we do not assess. This we leave to the district court, as we must given the limited nature of our interlocutory review.

PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.3d 887, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 1999 WL 61618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-austin-independent-school-district-ca5-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack