Jason Wong Case Study

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

The Americans with Disabilities Act has come a long way with helping to protect and obtaining justice for the disable opening the door for jobs and creating more adequate access to public spaces to an estimated 43 million disabled people however, corrective disabilities are more of a challenge. People whose disabilities that can be remedied with eyeglasses, medications, etc. are not covered by the ADA (Post, 1999). Justice Sandra Day O’Conner supports this action and wrote three provisions that led to the conclusion that remediable conditions are not a disability (Post, 1999).

The Public Law 94-142 is the landmark legislation that affected special education. Public Law 94-142 changed its legislative title which resulted from the enactment of Public 101-476 on October 30, 1990, to The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is also known as the "Bill of Rights" for children with exceptionalities and their families. This law is the most important pieces of the federal legislation ever passed on behalf of children with special needs.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

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

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal mandate that regulates how educational agencies supply children with disabilities early intervention services, special education classes, and additional assistance that is equitable to a general education student who does not have a disability. The services under the IDEA law are offered to children from birth to age 21. Students who qualify for services under the IDEA Act

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

The issues in this case was whether compliance with obligations to deaf or children with hearing disabilities under the IDEA also establishes compliance with obligations for effective communications under title II of the ADA. The IDEA provides that schools must provide children with disabilities free appropriate public education designed to the individual needs of the child. Title II of the ADA on the other hand provides that no individual

Plaintiffs move this Court pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requires states to provide free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for every child regardless of disability. This federal law was the first to clearly define the rights of disabled children to receive special education services if their disability affects their educational performance. A parent of a special education student also has basic rights under IDEA including the right to have their child evaluated by the school district and to be included when the school district meets about the child or makes decisions about his or her education. If a child is identified as in need of special education