IN REVIEWING CASES INVOLVING THE CHALLENGE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE SCHOOLS PRIOR TO THE INGRAHAM CASE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT WHILE COURTS WERE NOT READY TO BAN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PER SE OR FAVOR PARENTAL DESIRES OVER SCHOOL PRACTICES WITH REFERENCE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THEY WERE SHOWING AN INCLINATION TO PROVIDE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WAS CHALLENGED ON 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS GROUNDS. THE COURT HELD THAT THE 8TH AMENDMENT PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO PUNITIVE ACTION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, AND WAS, THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE IN A SCHOOL CONTEXT THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT, WHILE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IMPLICATED A 14TH AMENDMENT LIBERTY INTEREST IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO BE FREE FROM BODILY RESTRAINT AND PUNISHMENT, THE COMMON LAW TORT ACTION TO REMEDY UNREASONABLE PUNISHMENT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTION. THE MINORITY OPINION POINTS OUT THAT TORT ACTION IS UTTERLY INADEQUATE TO PROTECT AGAINST ERRONEOUS OR EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF FLORIDA LAW PROTECTING THE TEACHER FROM CIVIL ACTION IN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CASES. IN ADDITION, IT IS ARGUED THAT CIVIL REMEDIES AFTER THE FACT OF AN INJURY, PARTICULARLY TO A CHILD, ARE HARDLY SUFFICIENT. THE AUTHOR SUPPORTS THE MINORITY OPINION AND ARGUES FOR MORE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL STRUCTURES BINDING UPON SCHOOL OFFICIALS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS CONSIDERED INSENSITIVE AND REGRESSIVE. (RCB)