C.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, Independent School District No. 347
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
591 F.3d 624 (2010)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
C.N. (plaintiff), who had a communications disorder and attentional and hyperactivity problems, was enrolled in Willmar Public Schools, Independent School District No. 347 (Willmar) (defendant). Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (act), school districts were required to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for each disabled student. Willmar created an IEP for C.N. that authorized the use of restraint holds and seclusion if C.N. exhibited certain target behaviors. C.N.’s special-education teacher allegedly used the restraint and seclusion techniques improperly. C.N.’s mother withdrew C.N. from Willmar and enrolled C.N. in a different school district. Subsequently, C.N., through her mother, requested a due-process hearing, challenging the adequacy of the educational services that Willmar had provided. The administrative-law judge granted Willmar’s motion to dismiss the hearing request for lack of jurisdiction because C.N. was no longer enrolled in Willmar and had transferred to another district without first requesting a hearing against Willmar. C.N. appealed the ruling to the federal district court and asserted a claim against Willmar under the act. The district court dismissed C.N.’s claim because C.N. had not requested a due-process hearing on her claim against Willmar until after leaving Willmar. C.N. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beam, J.)
Concurrence (Colloton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
