Graham v. Friedlander
Citations
- 334 Conn. 564
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, four school-age children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and enrolled in the Norwalk public school system, and their parents, brought an action seeking damages from the defendant Board of Education of the City of Norwalk and three of its members in connec- tion with the hiring of the defendants S Co. and L, S Co.'s owner, to provide autism related services to certain children in the Norwalk school district. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that, under state law, the negli- gent hiring and supervision of L by the board and board members proximately caused them to suffer permanent and ongoing injuries and losses. L represented when she was hired that she had received various master's degrees and was a board certified behavior analyst, but the board and three board members never performed a background check or confirmed her credentials. The board and board members filed a motion to dismiss those counts of the complaint asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiffs sought relief for the board's and board members' alleged failure to provide special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.), thus triggering an administrative exhaustion requirement contained in that act and in the applicable state statutory (§ 10-76a et seq.) scheme that implements the federal act, thereby depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. The board and board members specifically contended that, although the plaintiffs did not allege a violation of the federal act, they sought relief for the denial of a free appropriate public education under the federal act and that, regardless of whether the complaint alleged a violation of the federal act or some other common- law claim, the federal act and state law (§ 10-76h) mandated the exhaus- tion of administrative remedies insofar as the crux of the complaint was the alleged denial of a free appropriate public education. The board and board membe
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘the fact that the one kind of harm caused may also be the kind of harm caused in a case involving the denial of [another right] does not mean that this kind of harm cannot be caused by other actions’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fry v. Napoleon Community SchoolsSupreme Court· 2017-02-22· cited 572×
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-04-19· cited 383×
- Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-17· cited 195×
- Cahill v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-05-11· cited 95×
- Town of Cheshire v. McKenneySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-08-19· cited 78×
- Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-08· cited 67×
- Robert Wellman, Jr. v. Butler Area School DistrictThird Circuit· 2017-12-12· cited 60×
- Jacoby v. BrinckerhoffSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-10· cited 47×
- Moore Ex Rel. D.S. v. Kansas City Public SchoolsEighth Circuit· 2016-07-07· cited 43×
- Fowler v. Town of EnfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1952-02-05· cited 34×
- Sansone v. BechtelSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-03-18· cited 33×
- Gordon v. HNS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-12-21· cited 33×
- Doucette v. JacobsFirst Circuit· 2019-08-26· cited 30×
- Housatonic Railroad v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-06-28· cited 29×
- Galgano v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-01-27· cited 28×
- Board of Education v. State Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-05-30· cited 27×
- Board of Education v. Town of EllingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1963-07-11· cited 25×
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-17· cited 20×
- Cheney v. StrasburgerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-03-18· cited 18×
- Vejseli v. PashaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-05-29· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.