case summary template is a case summary sample that gives infomration on case summary design and format. when designing case summary example, it is important to consider case summary template style, design, color and theme. the los angeles superior court does not warrant the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of any information translated by google™ translate or any other translation system. the los angeles superior court is not responsible for any damage or issues that may possibly result from using google™ translate or any other translation system. la corte superior de los ángeles no se hace responsable por daños o problemas que puedan surgir por el uso de google™ translate o cualquier otro sistema de traducción.
case summary overview
tòa thượng thẩm los angeles không chịu trách nhiệm về bất cứ thiệt hại hoặc vấn đề nào có thể phát xuất từ việc sử dụng google™ translate hoặc bất cứ hệ thống phiên dịch nào khác. 로스앤젤레스 상급법원은 google™ translate 또는 다른 번역 시스템으로 번역된 정보의 정확성, 신뢰성 또는 적시성을 보증하지 않습니다. the user acknowledges and agrees that the los angeles superior court is not liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided. incomplete information may be returned for van nuys general jurisdiction civil cases filed before january 8, 2001. in compliance with code of civil procedure section 1161.2, unlawful detainer case information is not available to the public for the first 60 days after filing.
the case was filed in the united states district court for the southern district of new york on may 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. the first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous eeoa violations that the section had identified during a compliance review of all the district’s english learner (“el”) programs and practices. on february 16, 2023, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the anchorage school district in anchorage, alaska to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. on july 24, 2013, the section and the department of education’s office for civil rights entered into a resolution agreement with the arcadia unified school district in arcadia, calif., to resolve an investigation into allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student’s sex. on july 23, 2021, the section and the u.s. department of education filed a statement of interest in the u.s. district court for the south district of texas in arnold v. barbers hill independent school district. on january 30, 2017, the district court for the eastern district of louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. the school district and the section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on october 16, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the eeoa. on november 13, 2019, the section and the u.s. attorney’s office for the district of vermont entered into a settlement agreement with the burlington school district in burlington, vermont, to resolve an investigation into allegations of sex discrimination. in an august 12, 2014 decision, the state court ruled that the state had violated the eeoa and ordered it to take remedial action, reiterating many of the legal standards discussed in the united states’ brief. on september 12, 2022, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the cedar rapids community school district in cedar rapids, iowa to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. in this matter involving the clay county school district, the section and the u.s. attorney’s office for the middle district of florida investigated whether the district was providing appropriate language services to its english learner (“el”) students, as required by the equal educational opportunities act of 1974 (“eeoa”). on december 19, 2022, the united states entered an out-of-court settlement agreement with the district to ensure that every english learner in the district receives english language instruction, and that teachers working with english learners are trained and qualified to meet their needs. the court held that mhsaa is subject to title ix and is a state actor for purposes of 42 u.s.c. the agreement requires the district to improve and increase language instruction for el students so they can become fluent in english and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects. with the consent of the school district, the section simultaneously filed a joint motion to declare the district partially unitary and approve a proposed stipulation with regard to several of the school district’s remaining desegregation obligations. on january 18, 2017, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the covington independent public schools to ensure the district does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. on february 8, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for modification of the court’s may 2016 order that would end the appeal and remove the additional proposals from the district court’s consideration. on september 7, 2022, the section, the u.s. attorney’s office for the district of massachusetts, and the u.s. department of education filed a statement of interest in the u.s. district court for the district of massachusetts in czerwienski, et. in this case, the plaintiff, a middle school girl with significant physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities, alleges that the fulton county school district subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. in its statement of interest, the united states advises the court that determining whether a school district employee is an “appropriate person” under title ix is fact-dependent and thus may not be based on the employee’s title alone. on december 1, 2021, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the frederick county public school district in maryland to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. the department of justice and the department of education filed a statement of interest on june 29, 2015 with the u.s. district court for the eastern district of virginia in g.g. on august 24, 2017, the section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the united states and ensure compliance with section 1703(f) of the eeoa. on november 22, 2022, the section entered into a settlement agreement with illinois central college in peoria, illinois, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the college’s programs, and to address concerns related to the college’s process for investigating complaints of disability discrimination. following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order, which the court approved on july 14, 2000. the order required the district to take steps to increase african-american student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes. the united states further alleged that the district had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted j.l. on july 1, 2016, the section and the united state attorney’s office for the district of kansas filed two statements of interest to assist the u.s. district court for the district of kansas with evaluating the title ix sexual assault claims in t.f. the united states filed a response to the show cause order that identified problems with the ell programs and recommended continued reporting by the sfusd, additional on-site visits of the ell programs, and the development of an updated master plan for ell programs. on february 12, 2015, the u.s. district court for the northern district of alabama approved a consent order filed by the justice department, together with private plaintiffs and the calhoun county, alabama school district, in this longstanding desegregation case. on june 4, 2007, the school district and the united states entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the eeoa. the section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated title ix of the education amendments of 1972 and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. on june 12, 2023, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the madison county school district to address complaints of race-based harassment in its schools. on april 24, 2013, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the metropolitan school district of decatur township, indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. in july 2003, the court approved the parties’ proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education. on september 1, 2021, the district and the united states entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the united states and ensure the district’s compliance with section 1703(f) of the eeoa.
case summary format
a case summary sample is a type of document that creates a copy of itself when you open it. The doc or excel template has all of the design and format of the case summary sample, such as logos and tables, but you can modify content without altering the original style. When designing case summary form, you may add related information such as case summary website,case summary example,case summary medicine,los angeles superior court case summary,los angeles court case search by name
when designing case summary example, it is important to consider related questions or ideas, how do you write a court case summary? what is the structure of a case summary? what is the summary of a case brief? what is an example of case law? court cases against schools, case summary of patient,case summary example medical,criminal case summary example
when designing the case summary document, it is also essential to consider the different formats such as Word, pdf, Excel, ppt, doc etc, you may also add related information such as
case summary guide
on september 15, 2022, the united states entered into a settlement agreement with the district to resolve the section’s investigation of the district’s english learner (el) programs and practices under the equal educational opportunities act of 1974 (eeoa). the school district and the section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on september 3, 2004, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the eeoa. on april 12, 2011, the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division and the department of education’s office for civil rights (ocr) reached a resolution agreement with the owatonna public school district (“district”) in owatonna, minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of somali-american students based on their race and national-origin. further, the united states alleged that as a result of the harassment, mr. owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district. the department also filed a motion to dismiss the hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. the school district and the section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on june 30, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the eeoa. on september 27, 2023, the section entered into a resolution agreement with the reeds spring school district in reeds spring, missouri to resolve an investigation into the district’s response to allegations of severe and pervasive peer-on-peer harassment on the basis of sex, including sex stereotypes and sexual orientation. on august 8, 2023, the section and the u.s. attorney’s office for the district of idaho filed a statement of interest in the u.s. district court for the district of idaho in roe, et. in addition, the district will take steps to improve access to gifted and advanced programs for english learners. a review of the somerville school district in massachusetts concerning the instruction and services provided to english language learners (ells) revealed the school district was not comporting with the requirements of the equal educational opportunities act of 1974 (eeoa). in february of 1970, the district court for the northern district of mississippi entered separate orders requiring the starkville municipal separate school district and the oktibbeha county school district to desegregate. on june 30, 2011, the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division and the department of education’s office for civil rights (ocr) reached a resolution agreement with the tehachapi unified school district in tehachapi, california, to resolve a complaint regarding the harassment of a middle school student based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. on june 11, 2021, the section and the u.s. department of education filed a statement of interest to assist the u.s. district court for the district of nebraska in evaluating the title ix peer sexual assault and retaliation claims for damages in thomas v. board of regents of the university of nebraska, case no. the department of justice and the department of education filed a statement of interest on january 25, 2016 in the u.s. district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania in t.r. on march 16, 2023, the section entered into a settlement agreement with the twin valley school district in whitingham, vt to address the district’s response to complaints of student-on-student harassment based on race and sex. on december 22, 2009, after significant litigation the court entered a consent order negotiated by the parties that requires the district to take remedial measures in the areas of personnel assignment, facilities, student assignment and quality of education. on november 9, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that obliges the district to take measures in the areas of student attendance and assignment, facilities, employee assignment, and student transfers. on june 23, 2005, after extensive discovery, the united states and dublin agreed to a consent order and a settlement agreement that resolved all issues between them, except for the interdistrict transfer issue. our complaint-in-intervention alleged that the district failed to provide equal educational opportunities to american indian students and failed to provide an appropriate program of education for limited-english-proficient navajo students. in a november 1999 decision, the panel withdrew the june 1999 decision, but maintained its reversal of the vestiges findings and remanded the case to the district court to determine if any other vestiges existed. in its supporting memorandum of law, the section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student, faculty, and staff assignments as well as student transfers. on the same day the united states filed its complaint, the parties filed a school desegregation consent decree the court entered on september 24, 1980. in january 2003, the court directed the parties to examine the continued viability of the 1980 consent decree. the united states and the school district agreed on a transfer policy that governs the transfer of students within the school district and to other school districts. the section worked cooperatively with virginia to resolve its concerns arising from information contained in the reports, and, as a result, the parties signed and the court entered a joint motion for dismissal on december 6, 2001. on december 6, 2016, the district court for the eastern district of arkansas approved a consent order to address the remaining issue in the watson chapel school district desegregation case, the administration of school discipline. in its filings, the section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student assignment, staff assignment, school construction, and extracurricular activities. after finding noncompliance with the extant desegregation order in this case, the division negotiated a settlement agreement with the district in 2001. in 2003, the school district moved for unitary status and dismissal of the case despite its noncompliance with the 2001 agreement. this longstanding desegregation case was filed by the united states in 1970. on august 14, 1970, the united states district court for the middle district of florida, jacksonville division, issued an order requiring the district to adopt and implement a school desegregation plan. on september 4, 2018, the court approved this second stipulation, which requires the district to further desegregation by ensuring non-discrimination in student discipline, equitable student transportation, and continued review of high school programs and student enrollment practices. the court issued a memorandum opinion and order on april 18, 2008, that denied the district’s motion for unitary status and ordered the district to devise an assignment policy that results in meaningful racial interaction for all of the students attending the two elementary schools in question. on may 16, 2006, the court approved a consent order, which declared the district partially unitary in the areas of faculty assignment, staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. the district moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had achieved unitary status in the area of student assignment to schools. title ix and title iv both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. on february 12, 2020, the united states reached a settlement agreement with the university to address the areas of noncompliance. on february 27, 2018, the district and the united states entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the eeoa and ensure that el students receive the support they need to succeed in the district’s educational programs. in this matter involving the worcester, massachusetts public school system, the section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to english language learner (“ell”) students as required by the equal educational opportunities act of 1974 (“eeoa”).