S.H. & P.F. v. Edwards

Eleventh Circuit

S.H. & P.F. v. Edwards

886 F.2d 292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 28, 1989

DocketNo. 87-8635

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 886 F.2d 292 (S.H. & P.F. v. Edwards) 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

S.H. & P.F. v. Edwards, 886 F.2d 292 (11th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

This case is before the court on a very limited certificate issued by the district court under Rule 54(b) (Fed.R.Civ.P.). The only claim involved is the “plaintiffs’ claims for relief in the nature of habilitation in the least restrictive environment in accordance with the recommendation of professional treatment staff.” The district court denied the claim. We affirm that part of the district court opinion.

This ruling is not to be interpreted as involving anything other than the one issue presented. Nor should this ruling be interpreted as limiting in any way the relief that is available to the named plaintiffs or individual members of the class should they prove that habilitation in a community setting is required to comply with the law of this circuit that persons so confined by given “minimally adequate” care in accordance with professional standards. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir.1974).

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

BY THE COURT:

This case is before the court on a very limited certificate issued by the district court under Rule 54(b) (Fed.R.Civ.P.). The only claim involved is the “plaintiffs’ claims for relief in the nature of habilitation in the least restrictive environment in accordance with the recommendation of professional treatment staff.” The district court denied the claim. We affirm that part of the district court opinion.

This ruling is not to be interpreted as involving anything other than the one issue presented. Nor should this ruling be interpreted as limiting in any way the relief that is available to the named plaintiffs or individual members of the class should they prove that habilitation in a community setting is required to comply with the law of this circuit that persons so confined by given “minimally adequate” care in accordance with professional standards. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir.1974).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 F.2d 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sh-pf-v-edwards-ca11-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack