Beaumont IV Summary

Doe v. Big Walnut Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 837 F. Supp. 2d 742

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

They sought an injunction ordering petitioner to provide Amber with CIC and sought damages and attorney’s fees (Eric)”.

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, ET AL.

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Petitioner’s counsel raised the issue of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings in her May 26, 2015 Motion. BISD filed a written response and exhibits contesting the issue and the question of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings was determined by Hearing Officer Kilgore via June 2, 2015 Order (“Order 8”) . Therefore, whether the District improperly included legal counsel in the

Griggs, the defendant, then decided to appeal to the courts, claiming they erred by rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, determining the child witnesses were competent to testify , admitting hearsay testimony from various witnesses, denying his request for a continuance, and admitting evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). The Supreme Court responded by affirming, holding “(1) the district court did not err by (i) rejecting Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (ii) determining that the child witnesses were competent to testify, (iii) denying Defendant’s requests for continuances, and (iv) admitting other bad acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the district court erred in allowing the admission of some hearsay testimony at trial, but the errors were harmless; and (3) Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not

Respondent, Killeen Independent School District (“KISD” or “District”), submits its response (“Response”) to Petitioners’ Motion Requesting Evidentiary Hearing and Ruling on Statue of Limitations (“Motion”) and the District’s Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) Petitioners’ understood Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations in the above-entitled and numbered case.

Petitioner does not allege that the Respondent made a change in his educational placement based upon a violation of a code of student conduct or that he disagrees with a manifestation determination. To the contrary, Petitioner is seeking as his sole request for relief a “Law suit (sic) on Beaumont Independent School District for allowing my son JaCorian to stay in a (sic) abusive classroom where he was assaulted.” Petitioner is not disagreeing with a change in placement based on discipline that would entitle Petitioner to receive an expedited due process hearing. Petitioner is disagreeing with the teacher assigned to his classroom. Since the Petitioner did not allege facts that constitute a disciplinary change of placement and thus that the mandatory provisions of Section 1415(k)(4)(B) for an expedited due process hearing do not

The court of appeals of the District modified the judgment of the supreme court by striking out the order for 'labor,' and, as so modified, affirmed it.The case was brought to this court on writ of error. A motion to dismiss and a petition for certiorari were

The first issue posed in this case is whether the federal court should have applied the federal rules of procedure or whether the case should have been determined based on the rule of the state. The second issue revolved around the state that should be used in the case should the court opt to apply the rule of the state.

This appeal arises out of an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirming the decision of the Board of Appeals (“Board”) of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“DLLR”) to deny appellant’s, Gallen Floyd’s (“Floyd’s”), application for unemployment insurance benefits. Floyd contends that the Board found he was terminated due to gross misconduct in want of substantial evidence to support its conclusion. Additionally, Floyd avers the Board erroneously considered hearsay evidence in violation of procedural due process.

Q2 The second matter that you wanted me to comment on is one with regard to a judge of the District Court by the name of Judge Tardy.

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due