With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the student handbook alerted Keelin B. and her parents that the conduct at issue was subject to discipline, and even may have given notice that expulsion was a possibility, the school board did not pursue the more severe discipline of expulsion and provide Keelin B. with the associated procedural safeguards. See, e.g., N.H. Admin. Rules, Ed 317.03. That the school board might have sought expulsion does not authorize it to exceed the twenty-day limitation for long-term suspensions established under the district policy. Furthermore, we do not find applicable the cases cited by the school district upholding challenged student discipline when the governing school policy gave notice that the conduct was prohibited. See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 678, 686 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Palmer v. Merluzzi, 689 F. Supp. 400, 410-12

A: holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent
B: holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours
C: holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver
D: holding that school disciplinary rule proscribing conduct as well as admonition by teacher provided adequate notice to student that such conduct would subject him to sanctions notwithstanding lack of specific penalty enunciated in school handbook
D.