GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS,
v.
DR. CHARLES MCDANIEL, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 1984-09-04
No. 81-7485
Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
740 F.2d 902 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 17 cases
Topics
Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act Of 1973

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act Of 1973 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

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. Although 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.

Dissent
JAMES C. HILL,

Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent to the original panel opinion. Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 716 F. 2d 1565, 1581 (11th Cir. 1983).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Manecke v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty., 762 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1985)
    …Ed.2d 385; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982); Georgia Ass’n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 716 F. 2d 1565 (11th Cir.1983), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3581, 82 L.Ed.2d 880 (1984), on remand, 740 F. 2d 902 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1228, 84 L.Ed.2d 365 (1985); Note, Enforcing the Right to an "Appropriate” Education: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 92 Harv.L.Rev. 1103 (1979). We therefore confine our di…
  • Mr. DOE and Mrs. Doe v. The Ala. State Dep't OF Educ., 915 F.2d 651 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …ividualized and appropriate education. Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 716 F. 2d 1565, 1571 (11th Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, 468 U.S. 1213, 104 S.Ct. 3581, 82 L.Ed.2d 880 (1984), adopted and modified on other grounds, 740 F. 2d 902 (1984). As such, its development and formalization are the focus of a host of procedural requirements.2 Such requirements regulate, among other things, the timing and methods of evaluating and classifying a child’s handicap, the notification that mu…
    1 / 2
  • Ga. Ass'n OF Retarded Citizens v. McDANIEL, 855 F.2d 794 (11th Cir. 1988)
    …ney’s fees thereunder. On remand, we modified our opinion so as to correct a statement regarding the availability of attorney’s fees and to make clear that it affirmed only that portion of the district court’s judgment granting relief under the EHA. 740 F. 2d 902, 903 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1228, 105 S.Ct. 1228, 84 L.Ed.2d 365 (1985). After the district court rendered its first judgment in 1981, the plaintiffs filed a motion for costs and attorney’s fees. Upon motion by the local defendants…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw