Legal Opinion
Beth v. Ex Rel. Yvonne v. v. Carroll
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 14, 1995No. Civ. A. 93-4418PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMPLIFIED OPINION PURSUANT TO THIRD CIRCUIT RULE 3.1 *
ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.
This is an action to enforce compliance with federal regulations located at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.660-.662 (1993), which set forth certain complaint resolution procedures states must provide under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485 (the “IDEA”). Plaintiffs seek to enforce these complaint procedure regulations under the IDEA itself (the “direct IDEA claim” or the “IDEA claim”) and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “section 1983 claim”). Before me are plaintiffs’ motions for…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. RowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Touche Ross & Co. v. RedingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Maine v. ThiboutotSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Beth v. CarrollCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Gundlach v. ReinsteinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Moubry ex rel. Moubry v. Independent School District Number 696District Court, D. Minnesota · 1996
- Beth v. Ex Rel. Yvonne v. v. CarrollCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. California Department of EducationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.