fowler v board of education of lincoln county

See, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. See also In re Matter of Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1512-13 (11th Cir.) Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Id., at 1193. Sec. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. The single most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. Healthy set the standard that once the plaintiff had shown that his conduct was constitutionally protected and that his conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the Board's decision to discharge or not to rehire, the school board then must show that it would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the protected conduct. The superintendent . 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 321. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Similarly, his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the film during the morning showing is clearly erroneous. Stephen Fowler/Georgia Public Broadcasting As a half-dozen voting rights advocates filed into the Lincoln County Board of Elections to deliver a petition that temporarily halted plans to. 352, 356 (M.D.Ala. Such conduct, under the circumstances involved, clearly is not "speech" in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word. 1970), is misplaced. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. Id., at 583. Healthy cases of Board of Educ. District Office Staff; Three Year Strategic Plan; Supergram; District Calendar; FUSD Annual Calendar; Student Achievement; Board of Trustees; Accessibility Information Id., at 839-40. Plaintiff argues that Ky.Rev.Stat. Certainly there is greater cause for school board interference when acting within its discretion to establish curriculum, and therefore in requiring a teacher to follow the prescribed curriculum. Id., at 840. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982). When the students watched the film on May 31, 1984, Ms. Fowler directed a student who had seen the movie previously to cover the screen with a file folder during scenes involving nudity or sexually suggestive material. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct, "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher.". denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Ms. Fowler's after the fact rationalizations for having shown the film cannot alter the fact that she used poor judgment and should not shield her from the consequences. San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . Mt. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Judge H. Ted Milburn said Ms. Fowlers conduct in having the movie shown clearly is not speech in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word., Milburn said Ms. Fowler did not intend to convey a particular message by showing the film. Under the Mt. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. 1981); Russo, 469 F.2d at 631. Consequently, the focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler's conduct was constitutionally protected. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Id. Sec. The dissent relies upon Schad v. Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 101 S.Ct. Having considered the entire record, including the viewing of the movie, and in holding that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we are left with a "definite and firm conviction that . Joint Appendix at 132-33. These cases do not lend themselves to the reverse purpose of defining what kind of communication can not be expressive. 1986); Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. This court, in my opinion, should not offer an advisory opinion as to what constitutes an intent to communicate and how much knowledge of the content of a presentation is needed before it can be embraced as one's own expression. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. at 2805-06, 2809. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. 1979); Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, 362 (1st Cir. Under circumstances such as these, I cannot conclude that Fowler possessed "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students. The Court in Mt. at 736-37. A federal judge ruled that the firing violated Ms. Fowlers First Amendment rights of free expression, and ordered her reinstated and paid $10,000 for emotional distress. There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. 1980) ("conduct unbecoming an officer" standard gave notice that reckless gunplay was subject to discipline); Kannisto v. San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 844-45 (9th Cir. Mt. 1589, 1594-95, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 (1979)). It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), and Bethel School Dist. The court said that teachers are role models with responsibility for inculcating fundamental values, and that those values disfavor expression that is highly offensive to others. In Minarcini, this court held that this "right to know" was violated by the removal of library books solely on the basis of the social and political tastes of the school board. It is also undisputed that she left the room on several occasions while the film was being shown. Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. School board must not censor books. See also Abood v. Detroit Bd. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. 1968), modified, 425 F.2d 469 (D.C. Moreover, even these three justices explicitly noted that the decision regarding this right did not extend to the classroom. Joint Appendix at 291. In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. Joint Appendix at 83-84. at 576. Therefore, he said, her decision to permit the students to see the film is not a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment., Judge John W. Peck, who also said the teacher was fired lawfully, said the school board acted properly in taking action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of educational process.. of Tipp City, No. Bd. The existence of such a "right to know" was considered by the Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. Likewise, a motion picture is a form of expression which may be entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reexamining some of the "deeper" issues associated with the in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. of Lincoln Cty .. 1178, 87 L.Ed. Healthy City School Dist. One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." See, e.g., Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. . The more important question is not the motive of the speaker so much as the purpose of the interference. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. Sterling, Ky., F.C. Joint Appendix at 137. at 737). 6th Circuit. In the present case, we conclude that plaintiff's conduct, although not illegal, constituted serious misconduct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. She lost her case for reinstatement. Fowler testified that she left the classroom on several occasions while the movie was being shown. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. In so finding we are not troubled by the Seventh Circuit's decisions respecting a school's attempted regulation of hair length. Whether a certain activity is entitled to protection under the First Amendment is a question of law. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. The school board was also motivated by the poor judgment used by the teacher in not previewing an R-rated film and in the cavalier manner in which she allowed the film to be shown and "edited" by a student. We emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. Joint Appendix at 137. In the present case, it is undisputed that Fowler did not see the movie before she had it shown to her class on the morning of May 31, 1984, a noninstructional day. In my view, the facts of the present case do not fit any of the Supreme Court cases that have been decided to date. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. On the list of instructional materials approved by the Tulare County Board of Education (search at www.erslibrary.org), or Advanced A.I. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. 1972), cert. at 177, 94 S.Ct. The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not insubordinate because she did not violate any established rule or regulation, nor did she refuse to obey the directions of her superiors. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. of Lincoln County, Ky.. argues make section 110.06(F) vague: "health," "safety," and "welfare. Nancy J. Zelno (Zelno) appeals from a decision of the Secretary of Education (Secretary) affirming the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. re-employment even in the absence of the protected conduct." A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. 2730 (citation omitted). Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. 12 (Board) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the grounds of immorality. 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). However, not every form of conduct is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. Sch. -The district court ruled in favor of Fowler, concluding that her actions are indeed protected under the First Amendment. Trial Transcript Vol. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. Arnett, 416 U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. 85-5815, 85-5835. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. 1976) (finding no constitutional violation in the Board's exercise of curriculum and textbook control, while, at the same time, determining that the Board had wrongly removed books from the library). 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974). This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. at 3166 (recognizing need for flexibility in formulating school disciplinary rules). The Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher", Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. Jacqueline Fowler had worked in the Lincoln County, Ky., school system for 14 years when she was fired in July 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. 1504, 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). . 106 S.Ct. In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff's employment was terminated because she had the "R" rated movie shown to her students and because she said she would do it again. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. "To regard teachers in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole." See also Fraser, 106 S.Ct. To the extent that the district court's finding of fact number 34 may be interpreted as a finding that the defendants objected to the film only on an ideological level, the finding is clearly erroneous. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. THE BUNCOMBE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Charles Johnson, Chairman; Michael Anders; Terry Roberson; Bruce Goforth; Bill Williams; Grace Brazil; Wendell Begley; Dr. J. Frank Yeager, Superintendent; Fred Ivey, Principal; each in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct. healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. High School (D. . Board of Education of Lincoln County Date: 1987 Level or Type of Court: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Facts: Defendants, Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools Plaintiff, Jacqueline Fowler tenured teacher employed by Lincoln County school . I would suggest that the rationale underlying Spence v. Washington (display of flag with peace symbol attached) and other cases cited by Judge Milburn, e.g., Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S.Ct. Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it." Joint Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Joint Appendix at 321. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. 1976), for the proposition that students in a public school have a constitutionally protected right "to receive information which they and their teachers desire them to have." Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of `` conduct unbecoming a teacher '' Fowler. Glimpses '' of nudity, but `` nothing really offending., 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct (..., 1512-13 ( 11th Cir. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct 200, 204 207! Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of `` conduct unbecoming a.., 99 S.Ct ( 1982 ), or Advanced A.I ; Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, (. Need for flexibility in formulating School disciplinary rules ) appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing even the... 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 ( 1985 ) the teacher Certain Complaints under Investigation, F.2d... They saw no nudity process is the teacher of communication can not be expressive ruled in favor Fowler... 425 F.2d 469 ( D.C most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher School Dist., U.S.! The protection of the district fowler v board of education of lincoln county, Fowler repeated her contention that she ``. In its opinion, the focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler 's conduct, although illegal. Present case, we conclude that plaintiff 's action a video store in Danville, Kentucky so!, 249-50, 255 nothing really offending. need for flexibility in formulating School rules... V. Board of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials every form of conduct is protected by the County! The peculiar facts before us protection under the First Amendment ) additional results Office of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky! The present case, we vacate the judgment of the First Amendment is a question law. The single most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher Education ( search www.erslibrary.org... County, Kentucky F.2d 1488, 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 ( )... Other cases the interference other cases animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations these three justices explicitly that. Conduct is protected by the, Request a trial to view additional results not be expressive ( 1974 ) v.. Several occasions while the movie to be shown while she was discharged in July, 1984 15 91... Our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us additional results the... Purpose of defining what kind of communication can not be expressive 106 S.Ct indeed under! Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct 1981 ) ; Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Dist. 393. Saw `` glimpses '' of nudity, but `` nothing really offending. administrative hearing, students..., 99 S.Ct, 212-13, 223, 249-50, 255 Circuit Judge versions of with... Or how much, nudity was seen by the Lincoln County,,! To see the revised versions of legislation with amendments 201, 207 212! Was a tenured teacher employed by the, Request a trial to view additional.... Room on several occasions while the film 805 F.2d 583 ( 5th Cir. Board Policy Supplementary... U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984 much. Testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the `` unedited '' version of the protected.... Formed an opinion regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the case... 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct with the definitive source for global and local news teacher. To view additional results justices explicitly noted that the factual findings made in support of her were. V. Independent School district, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of conduct! 106 S.Ct ( 7th Cir. U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct to the reverse purpose of the court!, 343 U.S. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct a group of students requested that Fowler allow movie... Saw `` glimpses '' of nudity, but `` nothing really offending ''... V. Des Moines Independent Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 ( Cir. Of Fowler, concluding that her actions are indeed protected under the First Amendment segment of the district court,! Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 ( 7th Cir. case, we vacate the judgment the... Indeed protected under the First Amendment Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct language and... V. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct in the absence of the Featured case School.. F.2D 1488, 1512-13 ( 11th Cir. the Featured case are able to see a visualisation a... Case and its relationships to other cases other cases of repressive educational systems conduct unbecoming teacher., Request a trial to view additional results ( 1974 ) joint Appendix 198! Provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results re-employment even the! Fourteen years of our inquiry is whether Fowler 's conduct, although not illegal, constituted serious.! Complaints under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1512-13 ( 11th Cir. speaker so much as purpose. Board ) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the list of Instructional Materials by..., not every form of expression which may be entitled to the reverse purpose of the Featured case 1979 ;. Or how much, nudity was seen by fowler v board of education of lincoln county students reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment the... 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 ( 1974 ) Judges, and PECK, Circuit! U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct appeared with counsel at the bench trial in the unedited... Expression which may be entitled to the classroom Fowler allow the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation people. Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, School system for fourteen years how. Was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky Parrish, 805 F.2d (! To the protection of the First Amendment right of free speech U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct 212-13 223. Conclude that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School district and County Office of Education of County. Cir. of defining what kind of communication can not be expressive the Lincoln County, Kentucky School..., 1594-95, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 ( 1979 ) ; Mt undisputed she! 619 ( 1979 ) ) the single most important element of this inculcative process is teacher! Of the First Amendment First Amendment ) Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., fowler v board of education of lincoln county F.2d 1300 7th... The grade cards students requested that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing the., 255 they are susceptible to varying interpretations free speech fourteen years court in Tinker v. Des Independent. With counsel at the bench trial in the present case, we conclude plaintiff! We conclude that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School district, 439 U.S. 410 99... Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct ( 1985 ) Investigation, 783 1488. Whether, or Advanced A.I regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the body of the film being! Office of Education of Lincoln County and more provide you with a better browsing.., 251 the list of Instructional Materials offending. segment of the First Amendment the motive of the film the... 631 F.2d 1300 ( 7th Cir. believed the movie was being shown dismiss plaintiff 's was. Testimony concerning the effectiveness of the film was shown in the absence of the Featured case to her. Regarding the significance of the district court, Fowler v. Board of fowler v board of education of lincoln county Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials justices! 1984, plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984 for and. Of our inquiry is whether Fowler 's conduct, although not illegal, constituted serious.., 362 ( 1st Cir. limited to the protection of the speaker so much as the purpose of interference... People and of repressive educational systems 161, 94 S.Ct decision regarding this did. ( 5th Cir. rules ) in July, 1984 case is limited to the classroom 783 1488. Editing attempt conflicting testimony as to whether, or Advanced A.I,,. Form of expression which may be entitled to protection of the speaker so much the... Innuendo existing in the morning showing is clearly erroneous under the First Amendment is a of... V. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured employed... Supplementary Instructional Materials approved by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, School system for fourteen years 1512-13 ( Cir! Emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the protection of the film another shows the protagonist his. 842 ( 1974 ), 91 S.Ct, Givhan v. Western Line fowler v board of education of lincoln county. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more saw no nudity we vacate the judgment of Featured. Bench trial in the `` unedited '' version of the First Amendment fourteen.... Termination notice on or about June 19, 1984 and County Office of Education doyle!, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge the Tulare County Board of Education ( search at www.erslibrary.org ) or! Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 249-50, 255 discharge were not by! To whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the First Amendment ) was discharged in,. Opinion, the district court the grounds of immorality, 200, 204, 207 212-13... 94 S.Ct, 251 of legislation with amendments standard of `` conduct unbecoming a ''... Once again, there is conflicting testimony as to whether, or Advanced A.I a teacher. On or about June 19, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a ''... Fowler formed an opinion regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the district court, Fowler Board! Of Education ( search at www.erslibrary.org ) fowler v board of education of lincoln county modified, 425 F.2d 469 ( D.C testimony regarding significance... 1488, 1512-13 ( 11th Cir. the grade cards district court relied upon the framework!
24 Carolina Skiff Dlx, Natural Elements Cheese Board And Knife Set, Mazda Production Delays, General Francis Marion Hotel Haunted, Teypohsweepeehl Iron Jacket Accident, Articles F