U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1970

Richard M. Cornwell v. State Board of Education

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 9, 1970 · Sobeloff, Craven, Butzner

428 F.2d 471; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8786 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
Leebaert Ex Rel. Leebaert v. Harrington (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2002)
Immediato v. Rye Neck School District (2d Cir. 1996)
Immediato v. Rye Neck School District (2d Cir. 1996)
Herndon Ex Rel. Herndon v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1995)
Roman v. Appleby (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1983)
Doe v. Irwin (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1977)
Modern Social Education, Inc. v. Preller (District Court, D. Maryland 1973)
Wright v. Houston Independent School District (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
Shapiro v. State of Maryland (District Court, D. Maryland 1972)
Ware v. Estes (District Court, N.D. Texas 1971)
Hopkins v. Hamden Board of Education (Connecticut Superior Court 1971)
Hopkins v. Hamden Board of Education (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1971)
Font v. Laird (District Court, D. Maryland 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.