What kind of legal action could be brought against Hogwarts staff? Our stepson, Harry Potter, only received love and respect from both my family and myself during his time at home. Nevertheless, we felt it was prudent to sent him to the best boarding school in the country to further his talents. He spent a total of six years at Hogwarts. Unbeknownst to us, the educational staff at said facility neglected their duty to protect their pupils from physical and emotional harm at several occasions. As a result he was forced to abort his education during his senior year. He required half a year of rehabilitation camping with two other students of his year. As such we want to make sure that no other child has to suffer the same way. Would you mind listing legal actions the staff or affiliates of said school have to fear? Jurisdiction is either England or Scotland, I can't seem to find the castle on a map. It goes without saying that muggle law supersedes any of the &quot;weird people&quot; law.
It goes without saying that muggle law supersedes any of the &quot;weird people&quot; law. In Harry Potter's world, the Queen and the Prime Minister of the U.K. have expressly and knowingly delegated legislative authority over the Wizarding world in secret legislation to self-governance by its own authorities, and also maintain a mandatory rule of silence about that world's existence. So, there would be no remedy in the ordinary courts of the U.K. Any remedy would have to come from Wizarding world authorities.
Without knowing the specifics on Florida Goverment's regulations, the term Umbrella School is used to designate school like organizations that over see multiple homeschoolers and that they are meeting state educational expectations. Often they will hold events which will allow homeschoolers to compete in school sports as well as set curriculums (sometimes), and field trips and social events (A stereotype of Home School Students is that they are poorly socialized compared to those who attend traditional public or private schools.). They should meet legal qualifications, but it's a bare minimum at best. I would recommend calling a local school administration office for best guidance, but saying Home School (Florida Unschoolers Umbrella School) would likely cover your bases. I'm sure you're not the first person to ask this question.
General Resource: the U.S. Department of Education puts out a nice compendium of the various state laws. Below are my jurisdictions. Illinois: (105 ILCS 5/10-22.6) In brief, school administrators may be delegated the authority to suspend students for gross disobedience or misconduct without consulting the board or the parents. In this case they must notify parents of the suspension, forward a full statement of reasons for the suspension, and notify the parents of their right to have it reviewed by the board. Expulsions, on the other hand, require a hearing at the board. Much of the due process for suspensions came frome Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Of interest, language changes took effect in 2011 authorizing suspension for gross disobedience or misconduct using electronic means. North Carolina: (NCGS 115C) In particular, Article 27 deals with discipline. The law distinguishes between short-term, long-term, and 365-day suspensions (...the latter is for firearm possession). This is a fairly good summary of NC School Discipline Laws and Regulations (prepared by ed.gov), while this is a good summary of the governing case law.
It may depend on the jurisdiction (although I can't readily think of one where this is not the case) but deliberately, recklessly or negligently putting a burning object next to someone else's property knowing that there is a real risk of it catching fire (and going ahead with it anyway) will almost definitely make one liable: especially if there is an ulterior motive. In england-and-wales This would be called arson - causing criminal damage by fire - an offence contrary to section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 Cross posted with the jurisdiction defining comment
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're referring to, but here are the state involuntary manslaughter laws. Broad brush, the elements tend to be: Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others. However, you're really backwards planning from a jail vs. army decision, so you might actually be after something like felony hit and run, which can most certainly result in incarceration. The elements of felony hit and run generally include leaving the scene of an accident regardless of fault (hit and run typically becomes a felony when someone was injured in the accident). Since the elements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it makes sense to look them up wherever the accident will take place in the book. If it takes place in the U.S. this is a state-by-state compendium. Then you can tweak the story to satisfy the applicable elements and induce the jail vs. army decision (even if army policy prohibits it, it's still pretty common fiction!).
The answer is a clear maybe. The school has a set of rules and by not attending you have broken those rules. The rules may (probably do) allow for consideration of extenuating circumstances but, in general, it doesn't have to. There is probably an appeals process, you need to investigate this. That said, if there are no provisions for extenuating circumstances and/or no appeals process then this may make the contract "unconscionable"; in many jurisdictions this makes the contract void. That doesn't mean you get the marks; it means you get your money back. The circumstances of your court appearance matter: the school may grant special consideration if you are called as a juror or witness; they might not if you are a defendant. Ultimately you had a choice, to follow the rules of the court or the school; there are consequences either way.
A school district has been sued for something like that. In Church of God, Etc. v. Amarillo Indep. Sch., 511 F. Supp. 613, plaintiffs successfully sued the school district "to enjoin the enforcement of the Amarillo School District's absence policy which limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays to two days each school year", where "A fundamental tenet of the Church of God is that members must abstain from secular activity on seven annual holy days". The school district imposed an absence polity where "School work missed may be made up whether an absence is excused or unexcused", and "Excused absences shall be granted to students for a maximum of 2 days for religious holidays in each school year". The court concluded that "This policy poses an unquestionable burden on the Plaintiffs' religious belief", and "This burden is not ameliorated by the make-up work provision. The provision does not require a teacher to evaluate the work made up. It in fact directs the teacher to enter a zero for that work". In this case "Summary judgment is granted and judgment rendered enjoining the enforcement of the Amarillo Independent School District's excused absence policy insofar as it limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays". This is not a matter of religious discrimination, this is a First Amendment issue. The policy is in violation of the Free Exercise clause. Eliminating spring break per se is not a problem: doing so and providing no excused absences is the problem. In the above case, there was clear a religious principle of the church to the effect that one must be off the clock on the holiday. As far as I know, there is no requirement to abstain from work or school on Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday or Good Friday. Nevertheless, in recognition of New Jersey state law which allows any student to take off a religious holiday – including Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and dozens more – the Board of Education has prepared a list of such holidays, which includes Wiccan, Hindu, Baha'i, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Church of Scientology (and so on) religious holidays.
Natural law does not prescribe particular punishments, that only comes from statutory law. Under Indian law, this would seem to be a violation of IPC 304a, &quot;causing death by negligence&quot;. There is no intent to cause great injury, indeed it is a complete mystery why the boy died. The penalty is up to two years imprisonment and a fine. There are more details in IPC 300, focusing on intent to kill under extreme provocation, but the required intent is lacking here. The courts may be lenient, having considered surrounding circumstances, and sentence her to less than the maximum punishment.