Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Fort Zumwalt School District v. Clynes
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided July 10, 1997No. 96-2503, 96-2504Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFloyd R. Gibson, Circuit Judge
I agree that our decision in Heidemann v. Rother, 84 F.3d 1021, 1033 (8th Cir.1996), precludes the Clyneses from recovering damages in this action, and I can conceive of no authority that would allow them compensation for interest on loans they took out to pay for Nicholas’s private schooling. Therefore, I concur in Part III of the Court’s opinion. Nonetheless, because I would affirm the district court’s judgment in toto, I respectfully dissent from Part II of the opinion.
IDEA makes available federal money to assist the states in educating disabled children. See Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. RowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Florence County School District Four v. Carter Ex Rel. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Carlisle Area School v. Scott P., by and Through His Guardians, Bess P. And Richard E. P., in No. 94-7520. Carlisle Area School District, in No. 94-7539 v. Scott P., by and Through His Guardians, Bess P. And Richard E. PCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Emily Thomas, Cross-Appellant v. Cincinnati Board of Education, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.