State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education

154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 469

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 24, 1951·No. No. 32215·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

The respondent has authority under the provisions of Section 4838-5, General Code, to adopt a rule excluding from the public schools within its district children who have not been vaccinated. The enforcement of such a rule is not a violation of the constitutional right to religious freedom. State, ex rel. Milhoof, v. Board of Education of Village of Barberton, 76 Ohio St., 297, 81 N. E., 568.

It clearly appears from the record that the board of education has performed its full duty as prescribed by existing statutes.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taf.t, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

The respondent has authority under the provisions of Section 4838-5, General Code, to adopt a rule excluding from the public schools within its district children who have not been vaccinated. The enforcement of such a rule is not a violation of the constitutional right to religious freedom. State, ex rel. Milhoof, v. Board of Education of Village of Barberton, 76 Ohio St., 297, 81 N. E., 568.

It clearly appears from the record that the board of education has performed its full duty as prescribed by existing statutes.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taf.t, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 469 (Ohio 1951).

Pincite

154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 469 (State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.