MCSOMEBODIES, ET AL., (NO. 1), PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1989-10-03
No. 88-15072
Before CHAMBERS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
886 F.2d 1558 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

Plaintiffs may recover attorney's fees, costs, and expenses under the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986.


Facts & Procedural History

After an administrative hearing ruled in favor of plaintiffs regarding a child's educational placement, the School District refused to appeal. Plainti…

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.


Opinion of the Court
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

At the outset, we change for this opinion the caption to “McSomebodies, et al, v. Burlingame Elementary School District”. We do this because the case involves a very young school child, and we do not think his name should be bound up for posterity in buckram. He may very well recover from his infirmities.

At issue here is the tail of the dog: attorney’s fees against Burlingame Elementary School District.

Preceding this attorney’s fees business, the defendant had been treating the child with certain efforts at the school house. Then, for a while, he was placed in the Hart Day School. That did not do very much for him. His parents requested placement of the boy in a residential setting. The School District refused.

An administrative hearing was held which resulted in a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The School District did not appeal. After the administrative decision, plaintiffs asked for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses, and were denied.

Now the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-372, 100 Stat. 796-98, comes into play.

The plaintiffs filed an original suit, not an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That court ruled against plaintiffs.

On appeal we reverse, holding that the plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees and appropriate costs plus expenses. See Duane M. v. Orleans Parish School Board, 861 F. 2d 115 (5th Cir.1988), and Eggers v. Bullitt County School District, 854 F. 2d 892 (6th Cir.1988).

Of course, our trial court, at the time of its decision, did not have the plethora of cases now available.

REVERSED for proceedings consistent with our decision.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw