U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 39— EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES › Part Part 4— Remedies

20 U.S.C. § 1712

Formulating remedies; applicability

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

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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Horne v. Flores (2009) scotus · cites it 2× “” 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 School District (2017) ca3 · cites it 2× “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 School (2010) ca8 “” 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. (2008) ill “§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 and School Association, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, Kevin H. White, (1976) ca1 “In particular, the Association points to § 213 of the Act, which provides that “in formulating a remedy for .”
United States v. Texas (2010) ca5 · cites it 2× “20 U.S.C. § 1712 . We conclude that intervenors failed to make the requisite showing.”
United States v. Yonkers Board of Education (1997) nysd · cites it 2× “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 (2010) dcd “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. School District of Ferndale, Mich. (1975) mied · cites it 2× “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 County School District (1995) scd “, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1712 , 1713, 1714, 1716, 1754.”
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver (1975) ca10 “See also 20 U.S.C. § 1712 ; Swann v. Charlotte-Meck-lenburg Board of Educ.”
Omayma Eltalawy v. Lubbock Independent Sch Dist, e (2020) ca5 “]” 20 U.S.C. § 1712 . Here, Appellant’s operative complaint generally seeks, for each of her claims, “damages, as well as .”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.