{
  "id": 2940851,
  "name": "TAPRECIA WASHINGTON, a Minor, by her Parent and Next Friend, Denise Patton, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROL SMITH, in her Official Capacity as President of the Board of Education, School District No. 215, et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Washington v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1993-06-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 1 \u2014 93\u20140121",
  "first_page": "534",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 Ill. App. 3d 534"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "543 N.E.2d 1053",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1059"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 1046",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2665586
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1058"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/187/1046-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 400,
    "char_count": 6910,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30733201047628644
    },
    "sha256": "6628a61150ea8458c080732a5b892cf129a2c8d7753dab0ae5be607f6d05418e",
    "simhash": "1:5bae608c761a94e1",
    "word_count": 1104
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:37.974036+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TAPRECIA WASHINGTON, a Minor, by her Parent and Next Friend, Denise Patton, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROL SMITH, in her Official Capacity as President of the Board of Education, School District No. 215, et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE RIZZI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Taprecia Washington (Taprecia), a minor, by her parent and next friend, Denise Patton, brought a common law certiorari proceeding for injunctive and declarative relief from an order of the Board of Education, School District No. 215 (Board). The Board\u2019s order expelled her for one semester from Thornton Fractional North High School (Thornton), for possessing an ice pick while on school property. Carol Smith, Steven Toth, Mary Lou Coneen, Ralph Spargo, Beatrice Taylor and Debbie Waitekus were named defendants in their official capacities as officers and members of the Board. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction allowing Taprecia to continue school for the semester. After a hearing, the trial court reversed the Board\u2019s order. The defendants have appealed from the trial court\u2019s order reversing the Board\u2019s order. We affirm.\nDuring the spring semester of 1992, Taprecia was completing her third year of high school at Thornton. On May 22, 1992, the dean of students received information that Taprecia brought a weapon to school, and he asked her if she was carrying a weapon. Taprecia then removed an ice pick from her purse and gave it to him. As a result, Taprecia was immediately suspended from school for 10 days. After the 10-day suspension, she was allowed to return to school to take her final examinations for the semester.\nThornton also recommended to the Board that Taprecia be expelled for one school semester for possessing a weapon on school property. Following a hearing on June 16, 1992, the Board entered an order expelling Taprecia from school for the 1992 fall semester. Thereupon, Taprecia brought the present proceeding in the circuit court.\nThe trial court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants and the Board from suspending Taprecia from school for the 1992 fall semester. After conducting a hearing, the trial court reversed the Board\u2019s June 16, 1992, order and entered an injunction enjoining the defendants and the Board from expelling Taprecia from school for the 1992 fall semester and from any other semester.\nThe trial court entered its order on the basis that the report of proceedings by the Board was inadequate to allow the trial court to review the Board\u2019s decision under a common law certiorari proceeding. The trial court stated:\n\u201cIt is with genuine regret that this Court finds it must reverse the Board\u2019s finding because of an insufficient record of proceedings before it that does not allow the Court to intelligently fulfill its certiorari obligations.\n* * *\nThe problem here is the record of proceedings which has been presented to the Court. *** To affirm, based upon the incomplete record produced here, would be a condonation of the less than due process afforded students under circumstances where the serious penalty of expulsion is a possibility.\u201d\nThe report of proceedings consisted of an audio tape that is partially inaudible and an affidavit of the recording secretary of the Board \u201ccharged with the responsibility of keeping the record of proceedings before the Board.\u201d The affiant attached six typewritten pages of testimony before the Board, but not all of the testimony was transcribed.\nWe disagree with the trial court\u2019s conclusion that the report of proceedings before the Board was inadequate to allow review of the Board\u2019s decision. The supreme court rules provide that if no verbatim transcript of the evidence of proceedings is obtainable, a proposed report of proceedings from the best available sources, including recollection, may be filed. (See 134 Ill. 2d R. 323(c).) We believe this rule, which is applicable to appeals from the trial court to the appellate court, is also applicable for review of an administrative agency\u2019s decision by the trial court by way of a common law writ of certiorari.\nHere, the report of proceedings before the Board from the best available sources, including recollection,' was filed. Although the report of proceedings does have some voids, it is plainly sufficient to apprise the court as to the proceedings before the Board. Moreover, the trial court stated in its memorandum of opinion: \u201cThe material facts are not disputed.\u201d Also, on appeal the parties do not dispute the material facts. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the record before the trial court was sufficient to allow review of the Board\u2019s decision.\nThe remaining question for our review deals with whether the Board\u2019s June 16, 1992, order is against the manifest weight of the evidence and an abuse of discretion. (See Norton v. Nicholson (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1058, 543 N.E.2d 1053, 1059.) It is within the discretion of a school board to expel a student who is guilty of gross disobedience or misconduct. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 22.6.) The discretion, however, does have limits.\nIn the present case, we agree with the Board that when a student carries an ice pick on school property without any legitimate, school-related purpose it is misconduct. There is no evidence, however, that Taprecia exhibited, brandished or otherwise threatened anyone with the ice pick. Her explanation for possessing the ice pick was that she was returning it to a friend who left it at her house the previous evening. Moreover, although Taprecia\u2019s past conduct is not exemplary, neither is it egregious. The school principal testified that \u201cTaprecia\u2019s disciplinary record contained six or seven disciplinary incidents, including one suspension for fighting.\u201d The Board concedes, however, that Taprecia \u201chas never had a \u2018severe\u2019 referral\u201d disciplinary problem.\nUnder all the circumstances, the misconduct involved in this case is plainly not sufficient to expel Taprecia from school for a semester. This is especially true since she has already been suspended 10 days for the incident. The Board\u2019s order of suspension for a semester is therefore palpably against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, the Board\u2019s order expelling Taprecia from school for the 1992 fall semester for the misconduct that is involved here is an abuse of discretion because the misconduct is plainly not sufficient to expel her for a semester.\nAccordingly, the trial court\u2019s order reversing the Board\u2019s order which expelled Taprecia for one semester from Thornton is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nTULLY, P.J., and CERDA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE RIZZI"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert H. Ellch, John M. Izzo, and Kelly A. Hayden, all of Chicago Heights, for appellants.",
      "Eugene C. Edwards and Mischelle Causey-Drake, both of Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation, of Harvey, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TAPRECIA WASHINGTON, a Minor, by her Parent and Next Friend, Denise Patton, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAROL SMITH, in her Official Capacity as President of the Board of Education, School District No. 215, et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 93\u20140121\nOpinion filed June 9, 1993.\nRobert H. Ellch, John M. Izzo, and Kelly A. Hayden, all of Chicago Heights, for appellants.\nEugene C. Edwards and Mischelle Causey-Drake, both of Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation, of Harvey, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0534-01",
  "first_page_order": 554,
  "last_page_order": 558
}