Opinion ID: 2037673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: statutory authority to exclude students

Text: First, Maacks contend that § 79-4,177(1)(b) does not authorize a student's exclusion from school when the student is not infected with a dangerous communicable disease. Therefore, Maacks argue, since Jessica and Melissa Maack were not shown to have measles, the Maack children could not be excluded from school under § 79-4,177(1). However, a student's conduct [that] presents a clear threat to the physical safety of the student or other students may be found in a situation involving a student who is unimmunized against a dangerous and communicable disease and who, nevertheless, attends a school where presence of the disease is confirmed. In that situation, the unimmunized student's presence in school, exposing the student to the contagious disease, poses a clear threat to the student's health, that is, the student's physical safety, especially if there is a strong likelihood that the unimmunized student will contract the dangerous and communicable disease. Therefore, we hold that pursuant to § 79-4,177(1)(b), attendance by a public school student at a school where presence of a dangerous and communicable disease is confirmed, when the student is unimmunized against the disease, is conduct that presents a clear threat to the physical safety of the unimmunized student and other students and allows the unimmunized student's exclusion from school. In Maacks' case, according to Dr. Morin, there was a practically 100 percent infection rate for the unimmunized Maack children, once they were exposed to measles. We need not further reiterate the remainder of Dr. Morin's testimony concerning the dire consequences of measles, conditions, and complications that certainly and clearly constitute a serious threat to one unimmunized against the extremely contagious disease. For that reason, § 79-4,177(1)(b) supplies authority for the Maack children's exclusion from school under the circumstances. Next, Maacks argue, in substance, that § 79-444.01, the immunization waiver statute, operates in absolute isolation from § 79-4,177(1), the exclusionary statute, so that a child unimmunized against measles may attend school even during an outbreak of measles if there has been the appropriate waiver of immunization. The school district argues that the emergency situation of a measles epidemic authorizes exclusion of an unimmunized student pursuant to § 79-4,177(1)(b) notwithstanding the immunization waiver provision of § 79-444.01. Consequently, Maacks' appeal presents a question of statutory construction, that is, whether § 79-444.01 authorizes children whose parents have signed a waiver of immunization to attend school during a measles outbreak, when their attendance poses a clear threat to themselves, a situation that allows a school board to temporarily exclude students pursuant to § 79-4,177(1)(b). More simply, does § 79-444.01 take precedence over § 79-4,177(1)(b), or vice versa? In examining the statutes in question, we bear in mind general rules for statutory interpretation. When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, no judicial interpretation is needed to ascertain the statute's meaning so that, in the absence of a statutory indication to the contrary, words in a statute will be given their ordinary meaning. State v. Crowdell, 234 Neb. 469, 473-74, 451 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1990). Accord State ex rel. Gaddis v. Gaddis, 237 Neb. 264, 465 N.W.2d 773 (1991). To ascertain the intent of the Legislature, a court may examine the legislative history of the act in question. Spence v. Terry, 215 Neb. 810, 814-15, 340 N.W.2d 884, 887 (1983). Accord Pump & Pantry, Inc. v. City of Grand Island, 233 Neb. 191, 444 N.W.2d 312 (1989). However, neither the language of §§ 79-444.01 and 79-4,177(1)(b) nor the legislative history for those statutes indicates that the Legislature considered the relationship between the two statutes. As Benjamin N. Cardozo noted, a peculiar judicial problem of statutory interpretation occurs `when what the judges have to do is, not to determine what the legislature did mean on a point which was present to its mind, but to guess what it would have intended on a point not present to its mind, if the point had been present.' Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 15 (1921) (quoting from John Chipman Gray, Nature and Sources of the Law (1909)). Sections 79-444.01 and 79-4,177(1)(b) are separated by several statutory sections included under the heading GENERAL PROVISIONS pertaining to school districts and boards of education. For that reason, we may characterize §§ 79-444.01 and 79-4,177(1)(b) as statutory parts of an act containing expressions of general authority for school districts and boards of education. As a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter, statutory components of an act, which are in pari materia, may be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature so that different provisions of the act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible. Wounded Shield v. Gunter, 225 Neb. 327, 333, 405 N.W.2d 9, 13 (1987). Accord Indian Hills Comm. Ch. v. County Bd. of Equal., 226 Neb. 510, 412 N.W.2d 459 (1987). Also, when there is no clear indication of legislative intent, traditional maxims of interpretation may be helpful, but `rules of construction are neither ironclad nor inflexible, and must yield to manifestations of contrary intent.' Grosvenor v. Grosvenor, 206 Neb. 395, 399, 293 N.W.2d 96, 99 (1980). According to one such maxim, however, to the extent there is a conflict between two statutes on the same subject, a specific statute prevails over a general statute, or, as expressed in Kibbon v. School Dist. of Omaha, 196 Neb. 293, 298-99, 242 N.W.2d 634, 637 (1976): It is a well-established rule that special provisions of a statute in regard to a particular subject will prevail over general provisions in the same or other statutes so far as there is a conflict. Houser v. School Dist. of South Sioux City, 189 Neb. 323, 202 N.W.2d 621. Where general and special provisions of statutes are in conflict, the general law yields to the special, without regard to priority of dates in enacting the same, and a special law will not be repealed by general provisions unless by express words or necessary implication. Bass v. County of Saline, 171 Neb. 538, 106 N.W.2d 860. Accord Glockel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 219 Neb. 222, 361 N.W.2d 559 (1985). Section 79-444.01 allows a student to be admitted to a public school without immunization against certain diseases if the student's parent or guardian signs and presents a statement that the parent or guardian does not wish the child to be immunized. On its face, § 79-444.01 contains nothing that limits the waiver of immunization provision. Similarly, § 79-4,177(1)(b) authorizes schools, without exception, to temporarily exclude a student whose conduct poses a clear threat to the physical safety of the student or other students. Consequently, § 79-444.01 is a general statute pertaining to an ordinary situation of school admission without immunization, but does not deal with an outbreak of a dangerous and communicable disease that threatens students in a school. Section 79-4,177(1)(b) is more specific and expressly deals with an extraordinary or emergency situation. Unlike the general admission requirements of § 79-444.01 that apply to admission of all students, § 79-4,177(1)(b) governs only the small subset of students unimmunized against a dangerous and communicable disease, when their presence in a public school constitutes a clear threat to the unimmunized students or other students. As the result of specificity, § 79-4,177(1)(b) takes precedence over § 79-444.01. In the present case, it is difficult to imagine, if not inconceivable, that the Legislature would intend to withhold, withdraw, or shackle a school district's authority to prevent a dangerous and communicable disease from endangering unimmunized students and spreading through classrooms. Consequently, we hold that pursuant to §§ 79-444.01 and 79-4,177(1) taken together, a school board may exclude an unimmunized student from school during presence of a disease specified by § 79-444.01, despite a waiver of immunization in conformity with § 79-444.01. Thus, an unimmunized student's right to attend school on presentation of a properly signed immunization waiver pursuant to § 79-444.01 is limited by a school board's authority, under § 79-4,177(1), to exclude the unimmunized student from school during presence of a disease specified by § 79-444.01. The board of education of Lincoln Public Schools, that is, the board of education of School District No. 1 of Lancaster County, Nebraska, was authorized by § 79-4,177(1)(b) to exclude Jessica and Melissa Maack under the circumstances.