From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 24, 1951
96 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1951)

Opinion

No. 32215

Decided January 24, 1951.

Schools — Boards of education — Adoption of rules and regulations — Authority to exclude from schools children not vaccinated — Constitutional rights not violated.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton county.

This action in mandamus was instituted in the Court of Appeals to require the respondent board of education to provide relator's minor child, of compulsory-school age, "with a free education, as provided by Section 4836-1, of the General Code of Ohio."

Relator's child was refused admittance to the public schools under control of respondent because satisfactory evidence of immunization of the child against smallpox had never been furnished, as required by the rules and regulations of the respondent adopted under authority of Section 4838-5, General Code.

Relator refused to have his child vaccinated and would not consent to the child's vaccination by respondent's physician at public expense, on the ground that vaccination or medication in any form was contrary to his religion and conscience and interfered with his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was entered denying the writ.

The case is before this court on an appeal as of right.

Mr. George J. Weller, for appellant.

Mr. Henry M. Bruestle, city solicitor, and Mr. James W. Farrell, Jr., for appellee.


The respondent has authority under the provisions of Section 4838-5, General Code, to adopt a rule excluding from the public schools within its district children who have not been vaccinated. The enforcement of such a rule is not a violation of the constitutional right to religious freedom. State, ex rel. Milhoof, v. Board of Education of Village of Barberton, 76 Ohio St. 297, 81 N.E. 568.

It clearly appears from the record that the board of education has performed its full duty as prescribed by existing statutes.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 24, 1951
96 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1951)
Case details for

State ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. DUNHAM, APPELLANT v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY SCHOOL…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jan 24, 1951

Citations

96 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1951)
96 N.E.2d 413

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Mack v. Board of Education

Even if mandamus were the correct form of remedy, it is our opinion that the construction or interpretation…

Lackey v. United Rys. Co.

Hamilton v. Railroad, 250 Mo. 722; Whitesides v. Railroad, 86 Mo. App. 618; Glick v. Railroad, 57 Mo. App.…