20 U.S.C. § 1404

Acquisition of equipment; construction or alteration of facilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

If the Secretary determines that a program authorized under this chapter will be improved by permitting program funds to be used to acquire appropriate equipment, or to construct new facilities or alter existing facilities, the Secretary is authorized to allow the use of those funds for those purposes.

(b) Compliance with certain regulationsAny construction of new facilities or alteration of existing facilities under subsection (a) shall comply with the requirements of—(1) appendix A of part 36 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly known as the “Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities”); or(2) appendix A of subpart 101–19.6 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly known as the “Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards”).(Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 605, as added Pub. L. 108–446, title I, § 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2659.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1404, Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 605, as added Pub. L. 105–17, title I, § 101, June 4, 1997, 111 Stat. 47, related to the acquisition of equipment and construction or alteration of facilities, prior to the general amendment of subchapters I to IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 108–446.

Another prior section 1404, Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 605, Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 177; Pub. L. 98–199, § 3(b), Dec. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 1358; Pub. L. 100–630, title I, § 101(b), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3290; Pub. L. 102–119, § 25(a)(2), Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 605, related to acquisition of equipment and construction of necessary facilities, prior to the general amendment of subchapters I to IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 105–17.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “20 U.S.C. § 1404 (b).95 Thus, with respect to a physically disabled child such as the wheelchair-bound Pace, the school can comply with the IDEA’s accessibility requirements by satisfying either the ADAAG or UFAS.”

Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Repub. of Peru, 665 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “1055 (1947), superseded on other grounds by 20 U.S.C. § 1404 , its application in these circumstances would seem to dramatically undercut the treaty drafters' efforts to foster confidence in the reliability and efficacy of international arbitration.”

Est. of Thomson Ex Rel. Est. of Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008). “1055 (1947), superceded on other grounds by 20 U.S.C. § 1404 , to determine whether a trial in plaintiffs’ chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court.”

Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 325 F.3d 609 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “And even if Congress had identified constitutional transgressions by the states that it sought to remedy through the IDEA, the IDEA requirements, like the ADA and § 504 requirements, exceed constitutional boundaries. The IDEA, for example, requires the construction of new…”

Bd. of Educ. of the Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Schutz, 137 F. Supp. 2d 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). However, the District’s argument confuses the distinct and separate causes of action alleged herein—specifically suits brought pursuant to the IDEA (to which the State defendants are not immune) as opposed to suits brought pursuant to Section 1983 (to…”

Bd. of Educ., Pawling Cent. Sch. v. Schutz, 137 F. Supp. 2d 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). However, the District's argument confuses the distinct and separate causes of action alleged herein specifically suits brought pursuant to the IDEA (to which the State defendants are not immune) as opposed to suits brought pursuant to Section 1983 (to…”

Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minnesota Dep't of Educ., 767 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1404 (9)(D). This is repeated in the federal regulations.”

Tyler Armes v. Austin Richard Post (C.D. Cal. 2020). “28 20 U.S.C. § 1404 (a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins.”

Thomson v. Toyota Motor (6th Cir. 2008). “501, 508-09 (1947), superceded on other grounds by 20 U.S.C. § 1404 , to determine whether a trial in plaintiffs’ chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.