Cases

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

MEMORANDUM OPINION ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., District Judge. Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of JD, a minor child, bring this action against Defendants Kathleen Schwab and the Board of Education of Prince George’s County. Plaintiffs assert a student-on-student sexual harassment claim under Title IX, along with supplemental state law claims for negligence

SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the *47judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant appeals a memorandum and order of the district court dated September 17, 2002, denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and d

Opinion SCHALLER, J. The plaintiff, Jane Doe,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered subsequent to *297its granting of the motion to strike filed by the defendant, the board of education of the city of New Haven. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion to strik

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), entered July 5, 2007, which denied her motion for an extension of time to file a note of issue, granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CFLR 3216, and dismissed the complaint. Ordered that the order and judgment is

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe (“John”) was a recently enrolled, 13-year-old freshman at Oak Park & River Forest High School (“OPRF”), when he was accused of being in possession of a pipe and a small amount of marijuana at a freshman dance on September 9,1994. John was a special education student who had been identified as having a learning disability. The OPRF Board of Education (the “Board”) issued a ten-

AMENDED OPINION PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANN DOE AND JOHN DOE, parents and next friends of TOM DOE,* Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE No. 98-1075 COUNTY, a Body Corporate and Politic of the State of Maryland; ANTHONY G. MARCHIONE, Officially, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at

Crew III, J. Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Monserrate, J.), entered November 20, 2003 in Otsego County, which partially denied certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. *589At the time of the underlying incidents, plaintiff was a six-year-old first grade student at the Morris Central School. During

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Affirmed by published opinion, Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Chief Judge BOYLE joined. AMENDED OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether attorney’s fees are to be awarded for the legal services performed by an attorney in obtaining special education benefits for his child under the Individuals with Di

CRAWFORD, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court for defendant dismissing her suit. The basic facts are not in dispute. The case was submitted for trial by the court on a stipulation of facts and pretrial depositions filed in the cause. The pertinent undisputed facts are set out in the stipulation filed with the court as follows: This case involves an as

PER CURIAM. John Doe, a minor, appeals the district court’s judgment upholding an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling that his parents are not entitled to reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or “Act”), 20 U.S.C. §§ MOO-1485, for tuition expenses incurred from his enrollment at a private school. We AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying John Doe’s parents reimbursement.

18 F.Supp.2d 954 (1998) Jane DOE I, and Father as next friend of Jane Doe II, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 230 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Arlene See, Daniel Romano, Patrick Vasquez, Charles Cummings, Lisa Otto, Cyndie Skroch and Dr. Timothy Brown, Defendants. No. 96 C 3393. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge. Plaintiff John Doe filed a fourteen-count amended complaint against the Torrington Board of Education and several of its employees alleging violations of the following federal laws: the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 .U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts One and Two); the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen

WORKMAN, Justice, concurring: "A central purpose of law is to protect the weak from the strong and to compensate victims for injuries caused by carelessness and neglect. Unfortunately, when confronted by child abuse in the schools, courts often fail to fashion effective remedies." Todd A. DeMitchell, The Duty to Protect: Blackstone's Doctrine of In Loco Parentis: a Lens for Viewing the Sexual Abus

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON REIMBURSEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES AND COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J, This case, brought by Plaintiff John Doe, by and through his parent Jane Doe, (together “Plaintiffs”) against the East Lyme Board of Education (“the Board” or “Defendant”) for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA” or the “Act”), is before t

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. John Doe and his parents Mr. and Mrs. Robert Doe, bring this suit against the Darien Board of Education (“BOE”), the Town of Darien, Zachary Hasak, Robin Pavia, Melissa Bellino, Andrea Cunha, and Laura Conte, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. and § 504

DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge: John Doe (the “Student”) has autism and requires special education services. He and his mother, Jane Doe (the “Parent”), reside within the East Lyme Public School District (the “District”) under the jurisdiction of the East Lyme Board of Education (the “Board”). Up through the 2008-2009 school year, the Board and the Parent agreed on individualized ed