20 U.S.C. § 1712
Formulating remedies; applicability
In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of the laws, a court, department, or agency of the United States shall seek or impose only such remedies as are essential to correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or equal protection of the laws.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1975–2020 · leading case: Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009).
Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009). “” 20 U. S. C. §1712 (emphasis added). B The Court of Appeals did not engage in the Rule 60(b)(5) analysis just described.”
Khadidja Issa v. Lancaster Sch. Dist., 847 F.3d 121 (3rd Cir. 2017). “2d 406 (2009) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1712 ). Based upon these provisions, we hold that an individual alleging a violation *132 of § 1703(f) must satisfy four elements: (1) the defendant must be an educational agency, (2) the plaintiff must face language barriers impeding her equal…”
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., 618 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1712 (emphasis added). “Correct” means “to make or set right,” or “to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition.”
Bd. of Educ., Joliet Tp. v. Bd. of Educ., 897 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. 2008). “§1716 (2000)) or in the absence of action that these agencies are liable in court ( 20 U.S.C. §§1712 , 1713, 1714, 1716, 1717, 1718 (2000)).”
Tallulah Morgan v. John J. Kerrigan, Boston Home & Sch. Ass'n, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, Kevin H. White, Etc., 530 F.2d 401 (1st Cir. 1976). “In particular, the Association points to § 213 of the Act, which provides that “in formulating a remedy for .”
United States v. Texas, 601 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2010). “20 U.S.C. § 1712 . We conclude that intervenors failed to make the requisite showing.”
United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 984 F. Supp. 687 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “The Court finds, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1712 , that the remedy called for in this Opinion and the Order seeks to impose and imposes only such remedies as are essential to correct particular demands of equal educational opportunity and equal protection of the laws.”
LaShawn A. Ex Rel. Moore v. Fenty, 701 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2010). “the EEOA itself limits court-ordered remedies to those that ‘are essential to correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or equal protection of the laws’ ”) (emphasis in original) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1712 ). Notably, no similar statutory restriction is…”
United States v. Sch. Dist. of Ferndale, Mich., 400 F. Supp. 1122 (E.D. Mich. 1975). “20 U.S.C. § 1712 states; In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal educational opportunity, or a denial of the equal protection of the laws, a court, department, or agency of the United States shall seek or impose only such remedies as are essential to correct particular…”
Stanley v. Darlington Cnty. Sch. Dist., 879 F. Supp. 1341 (D.S.C. 1995). “, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1712 , 1713, 1714, 1716, 1754.”
Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, 521 F.2d 465 (10th Cir. 1975). “See also 20 U.S.C. § 1712 ; Swann v. Charlotte-Meck-lenburg Board of Educ.”
Omayma Eltalawy v. Lubbock Indep. Sch Dist, e (5th Cir. 2020). “]” 20 U.S.C. § 1712 . Here, Appellant’s operative complaint generally seeks, for each of her claims, “damages, as well as .”
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.