HARPER V POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL, No. 04-57037 (9th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TYLER CHASE HARPER, a minor, by and through his parents Ron and Cheryl Harper; RON HARPER; CHERYL HARPER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; JEFF MANGUM; LINDA VANDERVEEN; PENNY RANFTYLE; STEVE MCMILLAN; ANDY PATAPOW, All Individually and in their official capacity as Members of the Board of the Poway Unified School District; DONALD A. PHILLIPS, Individually, and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Poway Unified School District; SCOTT FISHER, Individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Poway High School; LYNELL ANTRIM, Individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Principal of Poway High School; ED GILES, Individually and in his official capacity as Vice Principal of Poway High School; DAVID LEMASTER, Individually and in his official capacity as Teacher of Poway High School; DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants-Appellees. 5909 ï£¼ ï£½ ï£¾ No. 04-57037 D.C. No. CV-04-01103-JAH Southern District of California, San Diego ORDER AMENDING OPINION 5910 HARPER v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Filed May 31, 2006 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges. ORDER The majority opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At Slip Op. at 4676, footnote 28, at the end of the footnote, add: We do not exclude, however, the possibility that some verbal assaults on the core characteristics of majority high school students would merit application of the Tinker intrusion upon the rights of other students prong. That question is not presently before us. The dissenting opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At Slip Op. at 4710, footnote 11, between <Id. at 4667.> and <Read broadly, this would protect>, add: The majority also does not exclude . . . the possibility that some verbal assaults on the core characteristics of majority high school students would merit application of the Tinker intrusion upon the rights of other students prong. Id. at ___ n.28. Appellants petition for rehearing en banc is still pending before this court. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.