Richard M. Cornwell v. State Bd. of Educ., 428 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard M. Cornwell v. State Bd. of Educ., 428 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Herndon Ex Rel. Herndon v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education (ncmd, 1995-07-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Herndon Ex Rel. Herndon v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education
M.D.N.C. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Murphy v. Arkansas, 852 F.2d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir.1988); Null v. Board of Educ., 815 F.Supp. 937, 939 (S.D.W.Va.1993); see also Cornwell v. State Bd. of Educ., 428 F.2d 471, 472 (4th Cir.1970), aff 'g 314 F.Supp. 340 (D.Md.1969) (holding the claim that plaintiff parents had an exclusive constitutional right to teach their children about sexual matters in their own homes was so insubstantial as not to *1452 confer jurisdiction upon a three-judge court under old 28 U.S.C. § 2281 ), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 942 , 91 S.Ct. 240 , 27 L.Ed.2d 246 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard M. CORNWELL Et Al., Appellants,
v.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al., Appellees
13976_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 9, 1970.
428 F.2d 471
Edward C. Mackie and Warren K. Rich, Baltimore, Md. (Rollins, Smalkin, Weston & Andrew, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants., Malcolm R. Kitt, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland and Martin B. Greenfeld, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on the brief), for appellees.
Sobeloff, Craven, Butzner.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Parents of pupils attending Baltimore County, Maryland, schools seek to enjoin the State Board of Education from implementing the board’s bylaw 720:3, which provides in part:

“It is the responsibility of the local school system to provide a comprehensive program of family life and sex education in every elementary and secondary school for all students as an integral part of the curriculum including a planned and sequential program of health education.”

The board adopted the bylaw as an appropriate measure for health and education after it studied the problem of pregnant students. The plaintiffs allege the bylaw violates the First Amendment and the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court, construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, held that the constitutional challenge lacks merit. We agree, and, for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm its dismissal of the action.

Affirmed.