ILNews

Judge rules law doesn’t require schools to bus students

Jennifer Nelson
December 21, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County judge ruled in favor of Franklin Township Community School Corp. on a lawsuit filed by parents after the school contracted its bus transportation services to an outside organization that charged students to ride.

Lora Hoagland and Donna Chapman filed the suit last year and the court created two classes: those who paid for services, represented by Chapman, and those who did not pay for their children to ride, but whose children would have if not for the fee. Hoagland represented those plaintiffs.

Franklin Township Community School Corp. voted in 2011 to not provide bus services for the 2011-2012 school year and contracted with Central Indiana Educational Service Center to provide the busing. CIESC charged more than $400 per child for the school year.

Both sides filed for summary judgment, and after hearing arguments on the matter Oct. 26, Marion Superior Judge Theodore Sosin ruled Monday that the discontinuation of bus services did not violate the Indiana Constitution. He also held that I.C. 20-26-1 et seq. and I.C. 20-27-1, et al. permits but does not require schools to bus students.

Sosin found that paying-class plaintiffs received the entire benefit of CIESC’s services and no private cause of action for damages exists under the Education Clause. Franklin Township is also immune from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

He entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Each party is to pay its own costs.

A week after this suit was filed in November 2011, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a legal opinion that the state constitution and statutes dictate that schools cannot charge fees for student to ride a bus to school to receive public education nor can schools charge bus fees directly or indirectly. The legal opinion was released in response to a request by two legislators on whether school systems can outsource bus services to another entity that charges parents.

Zoeller also ruled the same way in a 2010 legal opinion discussing fees imposed to ride the school bus.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT