Legal Opinion

Max M. v. Thompson

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided August 13, 1984No. 82 C 6575PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

This order concerns the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated herein, both motions are denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs’ initial complaint stated claims which, although based on various federal and state statutory and constitutional provisions, were primarily derived from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). 1 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1976). The EAHCA is a federal funding statute under which participating states receive federal funds to assist in providing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. RowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Donald Askew v. Kenneth BloemkerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
  3. Anderson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
  4. Barry L. Conrad v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. And Air Line Pilots Association, InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
  5. Monahan v. State of Neb.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1980

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Max M. v. Illinois State Board of EducationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988
  2. Clovis Unified School District v. California Office of Administrative HearingsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Max M. v. Illinois State Board of EducationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986
  4. Tice ex rel. Tice v. Botetourt County School BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990
  5. Tice v. Botetourt County School BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990

4 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