Gail Prostrollo v. The University of South Dakota (1974)

Dist. v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 781 (8th Cir.1974), ce rt. denied, 421 U.S. 952 , 95 S.Ct. 1687 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975).

Dist. v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 781 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 952 , 95 S.Ct. 1687 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975).

Fundamental to our reasoning is the fact that we are dealing with education, an area in which “[s]chool authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy [citing Swann v. Board of Educ., supra].” Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, at 781 (8th Cir. 1974), rev’ing 369 F.Supp. 778 (D.S.D.1974). .

Fundamental to our reasoning is the fact that we are dealing with education, an area in which "(s)chool authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy ... (citing Swann v. Board of Educ., supra)." 26 Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, at 781 (8th Cir. 1974), rev'ing 369 F.Supp. 778 (D.S.D.1974). 27 In light of this abundant precedent it is clear that Judge Judd's adoption of the limited scrutiny test …

In Prostrollo, the Eighth Circuit held that a parietal rule requiring on-campus residency for all freshman and sophomore students at the University of South Dakota bore a rational relationship to the University's legitimate objective of filling dormitoiy vacancies. 507 F.2d at 782.

“When no suspect classification is involved or fundamental right infringed, any ‘rational basis may justify the classifications which have been made.’ ” Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 780 (8th Cir.1974) (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 , 94 S.Ct. 1160 , 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974)).

See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 , 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1569 , 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983); Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 781 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 952 , 95 S.Ct. 1687 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975).

Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 782 (8th Cir. 1974), exhaustively considered the parietal rule in general and upheld a requirement that all freshmen and sophomore students live in the residence halls of the university.

The propriety of naming a school board as a party defendant has, however, come into question since the recent Supreme Court decisions of Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 , 93 S.Ct. 1785 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 , 93 S.Ct. 2222 , 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973), and the recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in the cases of Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714 (8th Cir. 1974); and Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775,…

See Prostroilo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 , 777 n.1 (8th Cir. 1974). 4 .

See Prostrollo v. Univ. of S.D., 507 F.2d 775 , 777 n. 1 (8th Cir.1974) (“it is fundamental that the University of South Dakota and the corporate body constituting the Board of Regents, both political subdivisions of the state, may not be sued under the Civil Rights Act since neither entity constitutes a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983”) (citations omitted); Aase v. State, S.D.

See Prostrollo v. Univ. of S.D., 507 F.2d 775 , 777 n. 1 (8th Cir.1974) (reasoning that “it is fundamental that the University of South Dakota and the corporate body constituting the Board of Regents, both political subdivisions of the state, may not be sued under the Civil Rights Act since neither entity constitutes a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.” (citations omitted)); Aase v. S.D.

See Prostrollo v. Univ. of S.D., 507 F.2d 775 , 781 (8th Cir.1974).

See also cases collected in Gay Lib, 416 F.Supp. at 1364 including Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974) and Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992, 1001 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). [9] Three decisions by cogent implication hold that the § 1983 remedy is available in the state court: Jones v. Hildebrant, 432 U.S. 183 , 97 S.Ct. 2283 , 53 L.Ed.2d 209 (1977); Adlinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 2413 , 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), dissent …

See, Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974); Poynter v Drevdahl, 359 F.Supp. 1137 (W.D.

See Prostrollo v. Univ. of 507 F.2d 775 , 777 n.1 (8th Cir. 1974) (“[Wl]e think it is fundamental that the University of South Dakota and the corporate body constituting the Board of Regents, both political subdivisions of the state, may not be sued under the Civil Rights Act since neither entity constitutes a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.”); Aase v. S.D.

See Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 952 , 95 S.Ct. 1687 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975).

See Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 952 , 95 S.Ct. 1687 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975).

See Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F.2d 775, 780 (8th Cir. 1974).