Recent Developments-Supreme Court Review

Article excerpt

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in the lower court:

DOCKET NO.: 00-325

NAME: Wendt v. University of Illinois

DATE: Oct. 30, 2000

CITATION: cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 383 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-314

NAME: Ahuja v. University of California

DATE: Oct. 30, 2000

CITATION: cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 382 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-406

NAME: Board of Education of Central Community Unit School District 301 v. Scionti

DATE: Nov. 27, 2000

CITATION: cent. denied, 121 S.Ct. 566 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-474

NAME: Stove v. Philadelphia School District

DATE: Nov. 27, 2000

CITATION: cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 568 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-518

NAME: Bickford v. Anchorage School District

DATE: Nov. 27, 2000

CITATION: cent. denied, 121 S.Ct. 570 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-613

NAME: Barrett v. University of Mississippi

DATE: Dec. 11, 2000

CITATION: cent. denied, 121 S.Ct. 657 (2000)

DOCKET NO.: 00-502

NAME: Joshua W. v. USD 259 Board of Education, Wichita Public Schools

DATE: Jan. 8, 2001

CITATION: cent. denied, 69 USLW 3452 (2001)

Decisions with written opinions in the Court of Appeals:

DOCKET NO.: 00-180

NAME: Burilovich v. Board of Education of Lincoln Consolidated Schools

DATE: Oct. 30, 2000

Parents of disabled student sued Board of Education for violating IDEA when the Board placed their autistic child in a mainstream kindergarten program. Parents were unhappy with the IEP proposed for their child and the manner in which the plan was created. They felt the procedure used was flawed, and that the Board ignored the advice of experts with which the Parents had consulted. Held: For the Board. The Court of Appeals found that the Board of Education did not violate IDEA. The parents had been included in the design of the IEP, proper experts were consulted, and the Board met all procedural requirements under IDEA. Since the Court ruled in favor of the Board, the Parent's claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in creating a special education program for their child was denied. Burilovich v. Board of Education of Lincoln Consolidated Schools, 208 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S,Ct. 380 (2000).

DOCKET NO.: 00-306

NAME: Denno v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida

DATE: Oct. 30, 2000

Student brought sec 1983 action against School Board for suspending him in violation of his First Amendment rights. The student was displaying a Confederate flag on school property. He refused to put it away when told to by an Assistant Principal. School Board claimed that they had a qualified immunity from said action and the lower court agreed. Held: For the Board, Defendants were immune from the present suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from suits where their conduct does not violate any established right which a reasonable person would have known. At the time of this incident, there was no clear First Amendment right to display the Confederate Flag on school property, thus the Defendants were able to enjoy a qualified immunity from this action. Denno v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida, 218 RM 1267 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 382 (2000).

DOCKET NO.: 00-527

NAME: Walker County School District v. Bennett

DATE: Dec. 11, 2000

School District appealed Administrative Judge's ruling awarding reimbursement to parents under IDEA. School District wished to introduce additional evidence to the District Court as permitted under IDEA. …