*1 447, 457, 456, Karagheusian, Security 100 ment Commission for proceedings N.J. 277, opinion. inconsistent (1953): A.2d with this These “ proceedings * * shall afford the claimant the proof the matter opportunity full to explain steps the he light necessarily be viewed in the employment. to obtain took The Commis- position in the superior which sion direct shall to the claimant places agency to to the enable it statute which will enable the claimant to under- to assure cor- get know and facts stand, can, and to meet if he the tests and duty al- discharge rect its guidelines which the Commission deems or low disallow benefits. applicable. íjí íjí ífc % Plainly upon agen- casts statute DONOFRIO, J., CAMERON, P. respects cy, original appel- both concur. determinations, actively to late the role press parties produce all the interested and, proofs
relevant at their command necessary, independently to take
when facts, as,
steps get example, by parties is made
when record
unsatisfactory there is reason reliability proofs as a doubt the P.2d agency basis decision or the case has to believe that additional reason KOMADINA, Principal Anthony of Marana made facts obtained and High School, Wolfe, Dean President record its own initiative will contrib- Education, Marana School Dis 355, Education, trict, ute to a correct result.” Ariz. the Board of Marana District, There Each Member P.2d 959. of, Appellants, previously the claim- we have noted not represented ant counsel before was through PECKHAM, by responded openly to the Commission. He litem, guardian Anne Peck ad ham, Appellee. were asked of him. pursue facts The Commission did No 2 CA-CIV 814. which, in its conclusions indicated Arizona, Appeals Court law, necessary to determine deemed actively seeking whether he work not. 15, 1971. Denied D em Feb. Denied Review Court, review, to powers Superior proceedings.” “remand the case for further
Since, in testi opinion, our the claimant’s
mony nothing the exhibit added Commission,
record certified appeal, reviewing
hold that on the iden record, permitted
tical to exercise authority granted by the
the same that is
above cited subsection. relation the mandate in issuance of va-
to this constitute an order will
cating judgment Superior Court Employ- remanding this cause to the *2 to the
Appellee had refused admission been high length of his hair school because set forth exceeded the standards in Dress Education the Student Code. appeal
This an was taken order ordering the enrollment of student on grounds that order of Maraña High principal was School unreasonable arbitrary. and
The of Maraña School School Board meeting Septem- District No. at its held 7, 1965, adopted ber amending resolution campus the student relating handbook attire and containing following provi- sions : groom
“All students shall themselves acceptable manner.” It is if actually not clear this resolution found its into the student handbook or appellee if had notice thereof. The inter- pretation provision and enforcement of this left principal, to the Mr. Komadina. regulation There was no printed or rule “acceptable defining groom- manner ing,” but Mr. Komadina that hair testified top collar or was an acceptable and length that should sideburns not exceed the bottom the middle provision ear. certainly This is vague.1 indefinite and regulation Also One, Tucson School District No. Silver, County Atty., Pima Rose Ger- School, High includes Tucson and which Deputy Atty., Sweeney, County ald and merely provision: contains the Ollason, Sp. County Deputy Lawrence Atty., Tucson, Affairs, pupil’s grooming for “A and mode dress pellants. appropriate must be to the suitable school environment.” Giles,
Erik M. O’Dowd Charles Tucson, Appellate usually posi- in a appellee. courts actually subject tion to or see the view litigation, in this case but have exhibits by way photographs showing the hair mandamus, Appellants, by were a writ man, young sideburns of appellee, register ordered and enroll the seen, far observe we have Peckham, High Maraña School. person’s position person’s head ears on of a matter of high perhaps such low—could create —either a variance ears could make person variance. two between a short-eared inches long-eared Similarly, person. and a substantially long- materially and wide; great deal sideburns and discipline requirement than
er, objectionable, perhaps more many Richards v. Thur- operating the school. displayed by appellee (including *3 ston, proof that supra. lack There is a of lawyers court). this appearing before question would and sideburns hairdo normal school any question of
operation. is there Nor the case be- health or morals involved us. fore constitution- must next deal with the
We immediately become al and we only with not the Fourteenth involved Amendment of United Consti- States tution, the first ten amendments. but all of complete of all of the consti- discussion provisions tutional and ramifications could easily this into a treatise on turn This we great length. of constitutional law a do wish to do. full discussion not For of the constitutional involved interpretation of the various amend- ments, see the discussion “Nature Rights and the “Enumerated of Retained” Kirven, Rights” ably discussed in “Ninth Rights”, Amendment 84— 14 S.D.L.Rev. also, Redlich, “Are There (1969). See * * * Rights Retained ‘Certain People’?”, (1963). N.Y.U.L.Rev. 787
Many
wearing
hold that
cases
long
may
prohibited
of
hair
as
long
be
with school disci
as
does
interfere
safety
pline,
or cause breach
standards
peace,
and the hair is clean
Thurston,
groomed.
g.,
E.
Richards v.
noted that the
must also be
It
Kahl,
supra;
(7th
Breen
F.2d 1034
v.
degree
as
discloses a
of indefiniteness
denied,
937, 90
1969), cert.
398 U.S.
Cir.
regular
If
length.
hair
collar
; Westley
(1970)
Aside proof. must look the burden of find no We abuse of discretion on the school board trial find judge. is on show alsoWe style the hair principal this would case action the school arbitrary and unreasonable and a violation rights retained individual in showing justification absence
of the rule.
Judgment affirmed.
HOWARD, C. concurs.
HATHAWAY, Judge (concurring in the reasons).
result for different *4 15-302, provides that subsec. “shall unless otherwise school board
provided by law admit children between twenty-one years
age of six and who reside
in the district.” A.R.S. § permits
D the board to “exclude children filthy or vicious habits children suf-
fering contagious or infectious dis- ap- is no showing
eases.” There that the
pellee category. falls into the excludable
478 P.2d Arizona, Appellee,
The STATE of Eugene WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant.
Donald
No. 2 CA-CR 216. Appeals Arizona,
Court of Corrected Denial of 26, Nelson,
Gary Atty. K. Gen. Carl Gen., Atty. Phoenix, Waag, Asst.
pellee. Coxon,
Stanfield, McCarville & Wil- Stanfield, Eloy, appellant. liam A. Wooldridge, Eugene Appellant, Donald defendant, hereinafter referred to as degree, burglary, second convicted December, in- 1969. The the 10th alleged conviction, prior formation