Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- J.S. Ex Rel. Duck v. Isle of Wight County School Board (4th Cir. 2005)
- Todd D., by Next Friends Robert D., Patricia D. v. Elizabeth Andrews (11th Cir. 1991)
- Doe v. Alabama State Department Of Education (11th Cir. 1990)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Alabama State Department of Education (11th Cir. 1990)
- Polk, Ronald v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 (3d Cir. 1988)
- Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 (3d Cir. 1988)
- Chavez v. New Mexico Public Education Department (10th Cir. 2010)
- Bitsilly Ex Rel. Denet-Yazzie v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (District Court, D. New Mexico 2003)
- Carter Ex Rel. Ward v. Prince George's County Public Schools (District Court, D. Maryland 1998)
- In re the Adoption of Amendments To N.J.A.C. 6:28-2.10 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- Christopher M., by Next Friend Laveta McA v. Corpus Christi Independent School District and Mary Grett Memorial School (5th Cir. 1991)
- Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4 Of Bixby (10th Cir. 1990)
- Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4 of Bixby (10th Cir. 1990)
- Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. Dr. Charles McDaniel (11th Cir. 1988)
- Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. Dr. Charles McDaniel in His Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Schools (11th Cir. 1988)
- Natrona County School District No. 1 v. Ryan (Wyo. 1988)
- GC BY AND THROUGH WS v. Coler (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1987)
- Drew P. v. Clarke County School District (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1987)
- G.C. ex rel. W.S. v. Coler (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1987)
- Richard B. Manecke v. School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, Etc. (11th Cir. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
Dr. Charles McDANIEL, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants,
Cross-Appellees.
No. 81-7485.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 4, 1984.
Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees.
Fisher & Phillips, Griffin B. Bell, Jr., Ruth W. Woodling, Atlanta, Ga., for Savannah Chatham Bd. of Ed.
Mark Cross, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.
Jonathan A. Zimring, Atlanta, Ga., Rose Firestein, Ga. Legal Service Program, Savannah, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
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. Sec. 1401 et seq. ("EHA") and also on our consideration of Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
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).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.