JEFF D., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS,
v.
CECIL D. ANDRUS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court orders a remand for a compliance hearing on undisputed class members and retains jurisdiction over future matters.
The district court previously agreed that minors should receive treatment and found undisputed class members. The court addresses compliance hearings …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action cases and more on FLexlaw
As the district court agreed in its December 31, 1986, Memorandum Decision that “all these minors should receive treatment” and, as the district court found in its Memorandum decision of November 18, 1987, that there are undisputed members of the class, we order that appeal No. 87-4377 be remanded to the district court for a compliance hearing forthwith as to the undisputed members of the class.
This panel reserves jurisdiction over all future matters arising out of this case appealed from the district court.
The district court has jurisdiction over the compliance hearing as to the undisputed members of the class pending the decision and opinion in appeal No. 87-3586. The district court also has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to paragraph 24 of the Stipulation Settling Mental Health Claims as the claims for relief have not been adequately addressed nor has any compliance hearing been held as to any members of the class.
No petition for rehearing will be entertained and mandate shall issue forthwith in appeal No. 87-4377. See Fed.R.App.P. 2.
With regard to appeal No. 87-3586, a decision and opinion will follow regarding the disputed members of the class.
REMANDED IN PART, RETAINED IN PART.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keyes v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1, 895 F.2d 659 (10th Cir. 1990)
-
Friedman v. State OF Ariz., 912 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990)