Blackman v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a proper certification under Rule 54(b) requires both an express determination there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment
• noting “open question” of whether a § 1983 action can be brought to enforce FAPE right, and assuming without deciding that appellees’ § 1983 actions 9 were cognizable
• “If the [statute] has a plain and unambiguous meaning, our inquiry ends so long as the resulting statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Section 1983 is not the source of substantive rights but rather “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.”
• “[A]n action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce IDEA rights is a suit ‘under’ the IDEA and thus subject to the rider [limiting attorneys’ fees].”
• “Plaintiffs’ right to a free appropriate education is unaffected by the fact that they have chosen to assert their claim in a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).