Case Study : Foster V. Houston General Ins

T.M., by A.M. and R.M., his parents, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Cornwall Central School District United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket nos. 12-4301, 12-4484(XAP). Decided: April 2, 2014

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Court Reasoning-- A Fairfax County special education eligibility committee evaluated Edward's condition and determined that his behavior indicated a conduct disorder that did not qualify as a serious emotional disturbance.   The district court upheld the State Review Officer's determination that Edward was not disabled and that his parents were not entitled to tuition reimbursement. Decisions-- The district court upheld the State Review Officer's determination that Edward was not disabled and that his parents were not entitled to tuition

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

Perform a search in the University Library databases and locate four school-related court cases (with outcomes decided), two which involve educators as defendants and two which involve students as defendants. Fill in the table below. When you give your informed opinion, state and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Base your opinion on legal and ethical standards as discussed in Ch. 9 of the text. If you do not agree with the outcome, explain what would have been just. Base your explanation upon the rights and responsibilities of those involved. Cite your sources in APA format below the table.

I finally caught up to our client, Timothy Foster, near his residence in Jacksonville, Alabama. If you recall, Mr. Foster is the son of co-defendant and State Farm insured Nakeshia Foster. Mr. Foster had been very hard to get in touch with. I finally called his mother and asked her again for her help in having him contact us. We were finally able to meet at a McDonald’s directly adjacent to the sight of the accident.

The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his

Mayerson, G. (2012). Analysis of Zachary Deal v. Hamilton County Department of Education . Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/autism.deal.mayerson.analysis.htm

This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered.

The case involved a girl named Amy Rowley. She was a hearing impaired student in the Hendrick Hudson Central

On February 28, 2014, the trial court granted 24 Hour's motion. The court concluded that the written release clearly stated that 24 Hour would not be liable for its own negligence, and there was no evidence of gross negligence. It explained that based "on the very short notice that [24 Hour] had about the problem with the clip coupled with the evidence of the care that [it] took to maintain" the facility, Grebing "failed to submit evidence that demonstrates an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care or a want of even scant

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

“One of the parishioners in the church is a local attorney. He offered pro bono legal services and filed suit on Heather’s behalf. The attorney knows that the Virginia state courts are packed with Birch appointees. So, he brought suit in federal court, arguing that the State of Virginia was failing in its responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education

chose an article titled, A.C.L.U. Sues Over Handcuffing of Boy, 8, and Girl, 9, in Kentucky. This article is trying to shine the spotlight on using handcuffs as restraints for children by sharing the story of a Kentucky resource officer who handcuffed two students. One student, a male, had been diagnosed with ADHD. The other student, a female, also had been diagnosed with ADHD along with other “special needs.” A lawsuit has been filed against the Kentucky man for trying to restrain the children with handcuffs for “acting out”. In the lawsuit, it is mentioned that the kids are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act because the officer’s actions violate both the disabilities act and the children’s constitutional rights. It is mentioned

His last example is that of Tracy Latimer, a 12 year old with cerebral palsy who had the brain capacity of a three month old. Tracy Latimer was killed by her father, who was tried for murder and found guilty of only second degree murder. The judge wanted to give him only an one year sentence, but the Canadian Supreme Court insisted he be given the minimum 25 years. Those who supported the Supreme Court’s decision included the handicapped themselves, who used the argument that it is wrong to discriminate against the disabled to oppose the lenient sentence first given. Mr. Laimer argued that this was not a case of discrimination against the handicapped. He killed his daughter because keeping her alive was torture. She had undergone major surgery and needed