Law Library Page 2

1st - ME, MA, NH, PR, RI
2nd - NY, VT, CT
3rd - PA, NJ, DE, VI
4th - MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
5th - LA, TX, MS
6th - MI, OH, KY TN
7th - IL, IN, WI
8th - ND, SD, MN, NE, IA, MO AR
9th - CA, OR, WA, AZ, MT, ID, NV, AK, HI
10th - CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY
11th - AL, GA, FL

3rd Circuit Cases (Covers N.J.)

*A.W. v. Jersey Cty Pub Sch In this appeal, we reexamine our holding in W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir. 1995), that an action can be maintained against school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. We do so in light of the 1A.W. reached a settlement with JCPS and its officials in February 2004.Supreme Court’s reasoning in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005), regarding the availability of § 1983 to redress violations of federal statutory rights and the

opinions of our sister courts of appeals that have questioned Matula. The District Court, relying on Matula, held that the alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights were actionable under § 1983 and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that plaintiff’s

cause of action could be maintained and there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendants violated clearly established federal law. We will reverse.

*P.N. v. CLEMENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION There is no de minimis exception to the rule that a plaintiff “prevails” whenever “relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that benefits the plaintiff.

*L.E. v RAMSEY BOARD OF EDUCATION The burden of proof rests upon the party seeking change of the status quo; the holding in Schaffer applies in NJ despite the Lascari ruling.

*THE CIRCLE SCHOOL v. THE HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPER Law requiring parental notification of student's declining to recite pledge of alliegence ruled unconstitutional.

*DANIEL S. v. SCRANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3rd Circuit case awarding attorneys fee for attendance at IEP meeting convened as a result of pending due process hearing.

CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL v. SCOTT P. Compensatory education awarded.

GRANT G. v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 3rd Circuit case holding that the IDEA does not permit reduction of tuition reimbursement to which plaintiffs are otherwise entitled based on an assessment of the relative reasonableness of the parties' conduct. The court further held that plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement for the IEEs, the District having failed to establish that its evaluations were appropriate.

GEIS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS Case discusses standards as existed in NJ in 1985.

J.H. v. BERNARDSVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION 3rd Circuit case with favorable ruling on behalf of parents awarding tuition reimbursement, and affirming that IEP's were inadequate and denied J.H. of his right to a free appropriate public education.

*JOHN T. v. DELAWARE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT This case deals with the applicability of Buckhannon to IDEA fee cases ( it applies) and whether interim procedural victories create prevailing party status ( they don't).

HOLMES v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT Reimbursement of attorney fees, IEE.

*J.O. v. ORANGE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION Success in obtaining stay put order does not give rise to an award of attorney fees.

*JEREMY H. v. MOUNT LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT Statute of limitations ruling.

KRUELLE v. NEW CASTLE CO. BOE Residential standard enunciated.

OBERTI v. BOARD OF EDUCATION School District did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that student could not be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom with supplementary aids and services.

*ROBERT S., v. STETSON SCHOOL, INC Robert S , filed this action asserting claims against the school and its staff members under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 for violating his federal constitutional rights by subjecting him to physical and psychological abuse. In this appeal, Robert challenges the District Court's decision that Stetson and its staff did not act under color of state law, as well as two of the District Court's evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

*S.G. v. SAYREVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION Suspension of kindergarten student for saying "I'm going to shoot you" while playing during recess is permissible.

T.R. v. KINGWOOD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION 3rd Circuit case dealing with issues of FAPE and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The court remanded for a determination of whether the Board failed to consider any appropriate, state- qualified alternate placements within a reasonable distance of N.R's residence.

COLLINSGRU v PALMYRA BD OF ED 3rd Circuit case holding that parents cannot appear "pro se" in advocating for their children in Federal Court.

D.R. v. EAST BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION 3rd Circuit case considered the enforceability of settlement agreements made between parents and school boards with the intent of enforcing the IDEA. Ruling in favor of School Board, settlement agreement binding.

N.E. v. RIDGEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION 3rd Circuit case holding that IDEA "calls for more than a trivial educational benefit" and requires a satisfactory IEP to provide "significant learning," and confer "meaningful benefit." The Court also rejected the notion that what was "appropriate" could be reduced to a single standard, and held that the benefit "must be gauged in relation to the child's potential. When students display considerable intellectual potential, IDEA requires a great deal more than a negligible [benefit].

M.C. v. CENTRAL REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Compensatory education case.

MICHAEL C. v. THE RADNOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 3rd Circuit case ruling on application for stay put, holding that one state need not automatically accept and implement an IEP developed by another state.

TAYLOR v. PHOENIXVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3rd Circuit. Does mental illness, bipolar disorder, or manic depression , qualify as a disability under the ADA?

HOLMES v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT Suit for attorney's fees.

SUSQUENITA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RAELEE S., "As we have explained, section 1415(e)(3) was drafted to guard the interests of parents and their children. We cannot agree that this same section should be used here as a weapon by the Susquenita School District to force parents to maintain a child in a public school placement which the state appeals panel has held inappropriate...the private school placement, by virtue of the education appeals panel decision, is the appropriate pendent placement for purposes of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3)."

*WARREN v. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT In concluding that the private cause of action under Title IX was not identical to the cause of action under Title VII, the Court in Gebser stressed the different purposes of those two statutes. The explicit cause of action in Title VII is intended to punish acts of discrimination, whereas the cause of action in Title IX is intended as protection for the student. See Gebser, 524 U.S. at 287

WB v. MANTULA Suit for damages under IDEA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 reinstated. SEE A.W. CASE ABOVE WHICH REVERSES THIS CASE.

*WOODSIDE v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION Attorney-parent not entitled to attorney fees when representing his own child in a due process hearing.

4th Circuit Cases

BAIRD v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Case dealing with a claim for damages for ADA violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

*CM v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HENDERSON COUNTY A state statute, providing that a request for a due process hearing must be filed within sixty days of an agency decision, is not inconsistent with (IDEA), as long as a party seeking such a hearing is supplied with the required statutory notice.

6th Circuit Cases

*KNABLE v. BEXLEY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT In this case, parents sought reimbursement for the costs of placing their child in private school after they withdrew him from public school. Holding: for parents.

Cleveland Heights City School District v. BOSS Case deals with statute of limitations, and when BOE is obligated to prepare an iep where child is still in a private school at parental expense.

7th Circuit Cases

*DALE M v. BOARD OF EDUCATON OF BRADLEY-BOURNNAIS H.S. DISTRICT NO. 307 Residential placement was for behavior management, not education, and therefore not a Board responsibility.

*EDIE F. v. RIVER FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT Parents not entitled to attorney fees because they were not prevailing parties under the facts of the case.

Annotated Law Library Page 3

8th Circuit Cases

*COSTELLO v. MITCHELL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 79 Court disregards Federal Child Find requirements and rules in favor of district. In this state it is a parental duty and burden to obtain a medical diagnoses to prove that their child had a disability.

*Fales v. Garth Tension arose between three teachers over the needs of special education students. They complained to superiors and others, including the media. The plaintiffs later filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging violation of their rights to freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment by instructing them not to discuss incidents regarding special education students at school and their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by lowering their evaluations. The Court entered judgment in favor of the administrator under the principles of qualified immunity.

*JIM C. v. ATKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT Arkansas waived its immunity against 504 suits by accepting federal funds.

*WAYZATA AREA SCHOOLS v. A.C. While Education Department regulations do permit children with disabilities to be suspended from school under some circumstances ( §C.F.R. 300.520(a)(1)) the suspension or expulsion is not normally appropriate as a first-line response to behavior problems resulting from a student's disability, even if the conduct in question violates school rules. See 34 C.F.R. Part 300 App. A, IEP's and Other Selected Implementation Issues, V1.38 (2000).

9th Circuit Cases

*AMANDA J. v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Due weight to LEA decisions not warranted where credibility is lacking; procedural infirmities deny Amanda a FAPE.

*LAVINE v. BLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT Student can be suspended from school due to poem that contains violent subject matter and taken together in context of surrounding circumstances, allows school district to conclude that such action needs to be taken.

LUCHT v MOLALLA RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT State complaints are "proceedings" for purposes of reimbursement of attorney fees and costs.

*SETTLEGOODE v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Million dollar award for special education teacher who advocated for her students and was then fired.

WITTE v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT A case dealing with monetary damages, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and brutality.

10th Circuit Cases

Falvo v. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT This case holds that the practice employed by teachers of allowing their students both to grade one another's tests and other work and to call out their own grades in class violates the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA").

*TS v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.54 If a student has graduated from high school and does not contest his graduation, the case is moot. See Board of Educ. v. Nathan R., 199 F.3d 377, 381 (7th Cir. 2000). Once a student has graduated, he is no longer entitled to a FAPE; thus any claim that a FAPE was deficient becomes moot upon a valid graduation. See id.; see also Neshaminy Sch. Dist. v. Karla B., 25 I.D.E.L.R. 725, 727 (E.D. Pa. 1997). This rule applies, of course, only where a student does not contest his graduation, and where he is seeking only prospective rather than compensatory relief.

11th Circuit Cases

*CORY D. v. BURKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT In light of the IDEA's goal of resolving educational disputes involving children with special needs promptly and effectively, we conclude the 30-day limitations period embodied in Ga. Code Ann. § 50-13-19(b), without the tolling provisions of the Georgia Renewal Statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-2-61, most closely corresponds with both the purpose and function of the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

WALKER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BENNETT The determination of what is "additional" evidence in appeals is discussed in this case, which is the same test used in the 3rd Circuit, which covers New Jersey.

Annotated Law Library Page 3

Federal Law and Codes

20 U.S.C.A.1400 IDEA

REGULATIONS Part 300

A.D.A. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

28 C.F.R. Part 35 NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 SECTION 504

Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA)

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2000

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS

Federal rules of civil procedure

FEDERAL REGISTER

federal courts

SEARCH THE N.J. DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS

SEARCH THE STATE OF N.J.

N.J. GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL RESOURCES

State Board of Education Legal Decisions

New Jersey Law and Codes

N.J.S.A. NEW JERSEY STATUTES

N.J. Office of Administrative Law CASES

N.J.A.C. 6A:14.1.1 NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE

NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (OAL)

DIRECTIONS TO OAL

Annotated Law Library Page 3

Phone: 732-238-0900                 620 Cranbury Road
                                                           Suite 212
            Fax: 732-238-0970                 East Brunswick, N.J. 08816
Email contact:
T. SUSSAN S. GREENWALD

The information presented herein is intended to be informational, and not legal advice. Obtain competent legal representation for your particular matter. See full disclaimer.

Your Page Title