Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Vance

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided August 5, 2004No. CIV.A. 01-2677(PLF)PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed this action seeking attorneys’ fees for their counsel’s work at the administrative stage to enforce plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and counsel’s work in litigating plaintiffs’ right to attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for summary judgment, and defendants responded with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
  5. Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Lopez v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
  2. Abraham v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  3. Davidson v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  4. Artis Ex Rel. SA v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
  5. Whatley Ex Rel. Whatley v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006

16 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