School Union v. Ms. C

13 Citing cases

  1. Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative School Dist

    Civil No. 06-cv-423-JD (D.N.H. Aug. 14, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    The court "exercises its discretion, informed by the record and by the expertise of the administrative agency and the school officials, as to how much deference to afford the administrative proceedings." Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008). The party challenging the hearing officer's decision bears the burden of proving that the decision is wrong.

  2. Millay v. State

    986 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Me. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Sebastian M., 685 F.3d at 85 (quoting Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir.1993)); see also Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cnty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207–208, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (“[C]ourts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States.... [O]nce a court determines that the requirements of the Act have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the States.”); Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.2008) (the reviewing district court must “exercise[ ] its discretion, informed by the record and by the expertise of the administrative agency and the [local] officials, as to how much deference to afford the administrative proceedings”); Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083, 1087 (1st Cir.1993) (“[T]he persuasiveness of a particular administrative finding, or the lack thereof” determines whether the district court should show it deference). Additionally, the party challenging a hearing officer's decision carries the burden of proof throughout its review by the Court.

  3. School Union No. 37 v. United Nat. Ins. Co.

    617 F.3d 554 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,145 times
    Affirming dismissal of UCSPA claim, but vacating and remanding dismissal of claim for coverage

    Because Ms. C and DB filed the administrative claim after DB had completed his schooling and his tuition expenses had been paid, they sought "reimbursement for past room and board and transportation expenses associated with DB's education in private schools outside of Maine." Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C, 518 F.3d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 2008). The claim was submitted to an officer appointed by the Commissioner of Maine's Department of Education, who awarded Ms. C and DB $48,890.00 for room and board and $3,241.33 for transportation expenses.

  4. J.P.E.H. v. Hooksett School District

    Civil No. 07-cv-276-SM, Opinion No. 2009 DNH 098 (D.N.H. Jun. 30, 2009)   Cited 1 times
    Finding school did not deny student FAPE when unrebutted evidence indicated student adequately performed in regular education classroom without SDI

    As the party challenging the Hearing Officer's decision, Campbell has the burden of proof. Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Hampton Sch. Dist. v. Dobrowolski, 976 F.2d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 1992)). In its seminal IDEA opinion, the United States Supreme Court explained:

  5. Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin

    588 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Me. 2008)   Cited 32 times
    Describing earlier litigation

    However, to bar the assertion of a claim, laches requires that the party's delay in bringing the lawsuit was "'1) unreasonable, and 2) resulted in prejudice to the opposing party.'" Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 911 (1st Cir. 1989)). Further, laches is an affirmative defense and a defendant claiming laches has the burden "of proving both unreasonableness of the delay and the occurrence of prejudice."

  6. Figueroa v. Operating Partners Co. (In re Figueroa)

    CASE NO. 16-02956 BKT (Bankr. D.P.R. Jan. 26, 2018)

    The unreasonableness of the delay is judged according to the amount of time elapsed and a whether the non-moving party's conduct amounts to acquiescence in the alleged wrong. Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008). Finally, the party asserting the defense must make a clear showing of prejudice.

  7. Monjitas v. Irizarry

    587 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that Edelman does not bar retroactive relief paid from special state trust fund

    We review the lower court's ruling for abuse of discretion. School Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008); Ansin v. River Oaks Furniture, Inc., 105 F.3d 745, 757 (1st Cir. 1997). 1. Unclean Hands

  8. Davalos v. Baywatch, Inc.

    Civil Action 21-11075-NMG (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2024)

    Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2008). It matters only that the prejudice is “material.” Trustees of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., 187 F.Supp.3d 306, 318 (D. Mass. 2016).

  9. Richards v. Hudson Sch. Dist.

    Civil No. 12-cv-041-LM (D.N.H. Mar. 12, 2013)

    Finally, in an action brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A), the burden of proof rests with the party challenging the decision of the hearing officer. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C, 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Hampton Sch. Dist. v. Dobrowolski, 976 F.2d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 1992)); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 991 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Background

  10. P.K. v. Middleton School District

    Civil No. 08-cv-150-JL, Opinion No. 2011 DNH 036 (D.N.H. Mar. 9, 2011)

    In reviewing the decision, this court "exercises its discretion, informed by the record and by the expertise of the administrative agency and the school officials, as to how much deference to afford the administrative proceedings." Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008). This level of scrutiny "falls somewhere between the highly deferential clear-error standard and the non-deferential de novo standard."