Firth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a school district’s failure to respond to harassment and bullying does not rise to the level of “egregious conduct ... so brutal and offensive to human dignity as to shock the conscience.”
• “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a public education as a substantive fundamental right.” (quoting Handberry v. 436 F.3d 52, 70 (2d Cir. 2006))
• no substantive due process violation even where defendants knew of some or all of the mistreatment plaintiff endured, “yet condoned, permitted and/or acquiesced in such mistreatment”
• no substantive due process violation even where defendants knew of some or all of the mistreatment plaintiff endured, “yet condoned, permitted and/or acquiesced in such mistreatment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The underlying events described in the amended complaint ... surround [the student’s] diminutive stature, not his ADHD. Because [the student’s] individual education plan is not before us on this appeal from the granting of a Rule 12(c
• “It is well-settled that, while the IDEA itself does not provide for monetary damages, plaintiffs may sue pursuant to § 1983 to enforce its provisions—including the right to a FAPE— and to obtain damages for violations of such provisions.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).