Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees

Eleventh Circuit

Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees

740 F.2d 902, 19 Educ. L. Rep. 117, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18965

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 4, 1984

Docket81-7485

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 740 F.2d 902 (Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees, 740 F.2d 902, 19 Educ. L. Rep. 117, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18965 (11th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In our previous opinion in this case, reported at 716 F.2d 1565, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting an injunction against the defendants’ continuing policy of not considering or providing more than 180 days of education for profoundly mentally retarded children. In our opinion we expressly based our affirmance on our consideration of the Education for the Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (“EHA”) and also on our consideration of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

By order entered July 5, 1984 the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated our judgment and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. [---], 104 S.Ct. 3457 [82 L.Ed.2d 746] (1984).” McDaniel v. Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, — U.S. — , 104 S.Ct. 3581, 82 L.Ed.2d 880.

The Court’s decision in Robinson requires that we modify our previous opinion. In Robinson the Court held that a plaintiff who asserted a valid claim under the EHA could not also proceed under the Rehabilitation Act and that recovery could not be had for attorney’s fees under either Act.

[903]*903Although this issue of attorney’s fees was not present in our case, we did expressly state that recovery could be had under the Rehabilitation Act. This is now incorrect.

We therefore modify our previous opinion by making the following deletions: (1) delete the words “and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion; (2) delete all of part VI B of the opinion.

We also strike the final paragraph of our previous judgment and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it granted relief to plaintiffs under the Education for Handicapped Children’s Act.

Its holding that plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the Rehabilitation Act is REVERSED.

Except for these changes, the previous opinion is adopted and made the judgment of the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In our previous opinion in this case, reported at 716 F.2d 1565, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting an injunction against the defendants’ continuing policy of not considering or providing more than 180 days of education for profoundly mentally retarded children. In our opinion we expressly based our affirmance on our consideration of the Education for the Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (“EHA”) and also on our consideration of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

By order entered July 5, 1984 the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated our judgment and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. [---], 104 S.Ct. 3457 [82 L.Ed.2d 746] (1984).” McDaniel v. Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, — U.S. — , 104 S.Ct. 3581, 82 L.Ed.2d 880.

The Court’s decision in Robinson requires that we modify our previous opinion. In Robinson the Court held that a plaintiff who asserted a valid claim under the EHA could not also proceed under the Rehabilitation Act and that recovery could not be had for attorney’s fees under either Act.

[903]*903Although this issue of attorney’s fees was not present in our case, we did expressly state that recovery could be had under the Rehabilitation Act. This is now incorrect.

We therefore modify our previous opinion by making the following deletions: (1) delete the words “and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion; (2) delete all of part VI B of the opinion.

We also strike the final paragraph of our previous judgment and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it granted relief to plaintiffs under the Education for Handicapped Children’s Act.

Its holding that plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the Rehabilitation Act is REVERSED.

Except for these changes, the previous opinion is adopted and made the judgment of the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 F.2d 902, 19 Educ. L. Rep. 117, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-association-of-retarded-citizens-cross-appellants-v-dr-charles-ca11-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack