{
  "id": 5481261,
  "name": "DANIEL J. CRADDOCK, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNAWAN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 226, HENRY COUNTY, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Craddock v. Board of Education of Annawan Community Unit School District No. 226",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 52415",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 28"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. App. 3d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3261156
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/73/0907-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3278914
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/76/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4404,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.844,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3355213402839078e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6300531420943847
    },
    "sha256": "ce6817bb763fa0537e1cdc13bd5d42bfdd6ef0a22db3ba2c207b4c8021b2fba2",
    "simhash": "1:d9bb4b66e8d3b463",
    "word_count": 694
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:25.292444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL J. CRADDOCK, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNAWAN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 226, HENRY COUNTY, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Daniel J. Craddock, a teacher and assistant football coach, cursed at a student during football practice on September 9, 1975. The plaintiff was sent a letter on September 15, 1975, by the defendant school board. The letter informed the plaintiff that he had been suspended for three days without pay, but that the suspension would not become effective until September 29, 1975, to enable the plaintiff to perfect a review of the decision by the school board. The plaintiff appeared before the board on September 25, 1975, to object to the jurisdiction of the board to suspend him. The board ordered that the plaintiff be suspended for three days without pay. On November 3, 1975, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court of Henry County seeking $155.58 in damages for the salary he lost while suspended. The circuit court thereafter denied the board\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, the court entered an order granting the plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The circuit court\u2019s order was appealed to the Appellate Court for the Third District. The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed the circuit court. (76 Ill. App. 3d 43.) We allowed the board\u2019s petition for leave to appeal. 73 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).\nThe appellate court held that section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code, which sets out a procedure a school board must follow to dismiss or remove a teacher, must be construed to permit a temporary dismissal, that is, a suspension. The court went on to conclude that since the plaintiff was not afforded the procedural protection of section 24 \u2014 12, particularly a hearing before an \u201cindependent hearing officer,\u201d the plaintiff\u2019s suspension was improper. (76 Ill. App. 3d 43, 46.) The court accordingly affirmed the trial court\u2019s judgment in favor of the plaintiff.\nAnother recent appellate court decision reached a contrary result. In Kearns v. Board of Education (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 907, the appellate court, in reliance upon the reasoning of the dissent in Craddock, concluded that section 24 \u2014 12, since it involves permanent termination of a teacher\u2019s employment, did not impliedly authorize suspension. The court continued that, nonetheless, the due process rights of the plaintiff therein had been observed; also, the court decided the plaintiff\u2019s unspecified first amendment rights had not been infringed. The court decided that, in its opinion, there was nothing procedurally or substantively invalid concerning the defendant board\u2019s suspension of the teacher. The court therefore affirmed the trial court\u2019s rendition of judgment in favor of the defendant.\nIn the instant case, the board contends that section 10-20.5 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 10-20.5), which empowers a school board to make rules, impliedly authorizes suspension of school teachers. Section 10 \u2014 20.5 provides that school boards possess, as one of their \u201cduties\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 20) the power \u201c [t] o adopt and enforce all necessary rules for the management and government of the public schools in their district\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 20.5). The board argues that the \u201cpolicies\u201d which it has enunciated regarding, inter alia, the conscientious and professional fulfillment of teaching duties, and the assumption of fair and considerate attitudes towards students, carry with them the implied power to discipline teachers when those \u201cpolicies\u201d are violated. Whether a school board may promulgate rules which impose disciplinary sanctions, including suspension, is not at issue here, however; we expressly decline to decide whether school boards are so empowered. The fact is that the board herein did not adopt a rule authorizing the suspension of teachers.\nAccordingly, for the reason stated, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas & Lifton, Ltd., of Chicago (Allen D. Schwartz. Lorence H. Slutzky and Elinor P. Swiger, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Drach, Terrell & Deffenbaugh, P.C., of Springfield, for appellee.",
      "Julia Quinn Dempsey and Eugene M. Daly, of Springfield, for amicus curiae State Superintendent of Education."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 52415.\nDANIEL J. CRADDOCK, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNAWAN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 226, HENRY COUNTY, Appellant.\nOpinion filed May 22, 1980.\nRobbins, Schwartz, Nicholas & Lifton, Ltd., of Chicago (Allen D. Schwartz. Lorence H. Slutzky and Elinor P. Swiger, of counsel), for appellant.\nDrach, Terrell & Deffenbaugh, P.C., of Springfield, for appellee.\nJulia Quinn Dempsey and Eugene M. Daly, of Springfield, for amicus curiae State Superintendent of Education."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 114,
  "last_page_order": 117
}