School District v. Stone was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a school district could be held liable for damages caused by a student. The case arose when a student, Stone, was injured while playing on a school playground. Stone's parents sued the school district, claiming that the district was negligent in providing a safe playground. The Supreme Court held that the school district could not be held liable for the student's injuries. The Court reasoned that the school district had no duty to protect the student from the risks of playing on the playground. The Court noted that the school district had no control over the student's actions and could not be held responsible for the student's injuries. The Court also noted that the school district had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the playground, such as providing adequate supervision and maintaining the playground in a safe condition. The Court concluded that the school district was not liable for the student's injuries and dismissed the case.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in School District v. Stone, arguing that the majority's decision was an improper interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that while it is true that a state cannot pass laws which abridge fundamental rights, such as those protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, this does not mean states are prohibited from passing any law which affects these rights. Rather, Justice Field argued that if a state passes a law for some legitimate purpose unrelated to infringing on constitutional protections then it should be allowed to stand even if it has an incidental effect on certain liberties or privileges granted by other amendments. In this case he believed there was no evidence presented showing how allowing school districts to borrow money would infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights and thus concluded that California had acted within its authority when passing such legislation.