Cescon v. Dove

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Title IX plaintiffs lack the \right to make particular remedial demands\
• “Reading Title IX to require federal courts to second-guess what is, at most, a debatable administrative decision would invite an avalanche of Title IX litigation and risk resultant financial harm to school districts.”
• denying as moot plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a surreply as well as defendants’ motion to strike surreply and commenting that “surreplies are disfavored in this District and the surreply would not alter the Court’s analysis”
• denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a surreply because “‘surreplies are disfavored in this District and the surreply would not alter the Court’s analysis” (alterations omitted) (quoting Chubb & Son v. C & C Complete Servs., ELC, 919 F. Supp. 2d 666, 679 (D. Md. 2013))
• “Plaintiffs’ evidence supports the inference that Classmate subjected JD to a few instances of sex-charged conduct, including raunchy remarks, lewd gestures, self-exposure and, arguably, inappropriate touching.”
• collecting cases refusing to consider such reports

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).