Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District
California Court of Appeals
60 Cal. App. 3d 814 (1976)
Peter W. (plaintiff) was a student in the San Francisco Unified School District (the school) (defendant). Peter alleged that he had a reading disability and that the school permitted him to advance from each grade without achieving necessary skills. Peter also alleged that the school allowed him to graduate with only a fifth-grade reading level. Peter alleged that this caused a loss of earning capacity, because he was unqualified for any employment other than manual labor. Peter sued the school, alleging that the school was negligent in failing to properly educate him. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and Peter appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rattigan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.