Legal Opinion

Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified School District

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 31, 1982No. C-80-4486 WHOPublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

ORRICK, District Judge.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (“EHA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., provides that a state must, in order to receive federal grants-in-aid under the Act, have in effect “a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1). Where placement in a residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a handicapped child, the cost of such placement also must be borne by the state, but this requirement applies only where residential placement is…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of ThibodauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Miener v. State Of MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Doe v. MaherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  2. Doe v. MaherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  3. Department Of Education, State Of Hawaii v. Katherine D.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  4. Waterman Ex Rel. Waterman v. Marquette-Alger Intermediate School DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1990
  5. Vander Malle v. AmbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API