U.S. Supreme Court Hears Special Education Case on Burden of Proof

Some of the most controversial education policy concerns and methods of practice have been over Special Education. Students between the ages three to twenty-one with disabilities compromise 13% of student enrollment between prekindergarten and twelfth grade (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013) (Appendix A, Table 1,2,3). From the late eighteenth century to current times, the legal system and court case outcomes have played a major role in the development of public education in America. The Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education not only ruled racial segregation as unconstitutional, but became a landmark case that opened the doors for court involvement in refining educational policy concerning Special Education. Standards of practice, which have evolved through the years, began to take form to support educational leaders in how they approached adhering to laws and policy concerning the education of students identified as special needs learners. Chief Justice Earl Warren who spoke for the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), stated: In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms (Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 1954).This case dispelled the notion that education could be offered to any group under the premise of separate but equal that had earlier been established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal” (Maidment, 1973).

Download Full-text

PENERAPAN ASAS PEMBALIKAN BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KONSUMEN

ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata ◽

10.36913/jhaper.v4i1.66 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 91

Author(s):

Misnar Syam

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Production Process ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Class Action ◽

Civil Litigation ◽

Consumer Rights ◽

Distribution Process

Consumer dispute related to violation of the consumer rights by businessman. Article 45 of Consumer Protection Law provides that the dispute may be settled by out of court dispute settlement or through litigation. In Indonesia, out of court dispute settlement of consumer disputes is conducted under the authority of Consumer Disputes Settlement Body (BPSK), while in litigation mechanism exercised with submission by the consumer personally, class action, or NGO claim. Consumer dispute settlement is part of civil litigation. According to Article 163 HIR/ 283 RBg, the party who alleges that he has a right shall proof his allegation. While, according to Article 19(5) of Consumer Protection Law, the businessman may be exempted from its duty, if it can proof that the damages suffered by the consumer is because of the consumer fault itself. Therefore, the businessman must prove that it did not commit any fault (shifting the burden of proof). The principle of shifting the burden of proof has adopted by Consumer Protection Law because the consumer has no sufﬁ cient knowledge of materials, production process, and distribution process which done by the businessman regularly. The Consumer Protection Law has no clear provision on the implementation of shifting the burden of proof, while the same situation is also found in Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2006 concerning Appeal on the Judgment of BPSK. Thus, there are inconsistency implementations on the shifting of the burden of proof between on case by case. It depends on the comprehension knowledge of the judges. Such situation may lead to ineffective implementation of Consumer Protection Law.

Download Full-text

Belgium ∙ Belgian Supreme Court Confirms Heavy Burden of Proof to Oppose Disclosure of Leniency Documents to Parties Claiming Damages in Follow-On Proceedings

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review ◽

10.21552/core/2018/4/8 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (4) ◽

pp. 290-292

Author(s):

J. Dewispelaere ◽

J. Vuylsteke

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Heavy Burden

Download Full-text

A Study on Judgement Criteria and Burden of Proof of Compensation for Damage as Objects of Taxation -Analysis of Korean Supreme Court Decision No. 2017du48482 Rendered on April 23, 2019-

Seoul Tax Law Review ◽

10.16974/stlr.2019.25.3.010 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 25 (3) ◽

pp. 435-483

Author(s):

JIhoon Woo ◽

Injun Yang

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Compensation For Damage

Download Full-text

The Supreme Court and Special Education

Intervention in School and Clinic ◽

10.1177/1053451218819256 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 54 (5) ◽

pp. 311-318 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mitchell L. Yell ◽

Antonis Katsiyannis

Keyword(s):

Special Education ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Service Providers ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Special Education Administrators ◽

High Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Related Service ◽

The Subject ◽

Education Administrators

Special education has been the subject of many rulings in federal courts. These rulings have greatly affected the practice of special education. The most important of these cases have come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which thus far has heard 12 cases directly affecting special education. This article examines the most important of these special education rulings from the High Court and addresses the meaning of these decisions for special education administrators, teachers, related service providers, students in special education, and their parents.

Download Full-text

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

Intervention in School and Clinic ◽

10.1177/1053451217736867 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 53 (5) ◽

pp. 321-324 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Angela M. T. Prince ◽

Mitchell L. Yell ◽

Antonis Katsiyannis

Keyword(s):

Special Education ◽

Public Schools ◽

Public Education ◽

School District ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Students With Disabilities ◽

Free Appropriate Public Education ◽

Disabilities Education Act ◽

Education Act ◽

The U.S

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.

Download Full-text

Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement in Special Education Cases: Smith v. Robinson

Council review ◽

10.1177/001440298605200411 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 52 (4) ◽

pp. 384-389 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ruth A. Luckasson

Keyword(s):

Special Education ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Due Process ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Legal Remedies ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Due Process Rights ◽

Legal Training

The Supreme Court in Smith v. Robinson indicated substantial restrictions on the ability of students and their families to recover legal expenses incurred in pursuing their due process rights under the Education of the Handicapped Act. The Act's reliance on private enforcement by parents coupled with the difficulties inherent in attempting to pursue administrative and legal remedies without legal training suggest that Congress intended that reimbursement of attorneys' fees be available.

Download Full-text

Freedom of Communication in the US and Europe

ICL Journal ◽

10.1515/icl-2013-0205 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Pedro Tenorio

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Freedom Of Speech ◽

The United States ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Press ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Us

AbstractThis paper compares the freedom of communication in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, departing from the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is noted that there are differences, as specified herein. Regulatory texts invite to speak of two distinct models, though this may be a far-fetched statement. This paper makes the following concluding remarks: 1) There are many concepts of freedom of expression that are compatible with democracy; the one derived from the Sullivan Judgment in the US (and in Europe from the Lingens Judgment) is not the only one, although it is currently considered the most consistent with democracy. This point is not discussed here. 2) Major changes sometimes occur through seemingly small details. In this sense, the shift of the burden of proof in defamation cases (Sullivan) has created an earthquake in the legal regime governing the press. The Sullivan doctrine can be summarized as follows: first, errors are inevitable, as freedom of speech requires ‘breathing room’; second, the malice of those accused of defamation must be proven; third, it is necessary to prove the lack of veracity of the slanderer. This doctrine allows the press to play its role as the watchdog of freedom. 3) In Spain, the press also appears to play this role, thus requiring us to ask whether there is, or ever was, a Sullivan Judgment in Spanish jurisprudence. We tend to attribute the privileged position of the press in Spain to the fact that the Constitutional Court has given preferential consideration to freedom of speech when it is in conflict with honor, intimacy and self-image privacy. This preference is justified by its connection to democracy. Since the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (STC hereafter) 6/1981 of 16 March, the Spanish Constitutional Court has stressed the importance of freedom of information for democracy, and since the STC 159/1986 of 16 December, the Constitutional Court has suggested the preferential position of freedom of expression. However, the incorporation of the Sullivan doctrine into the Spanish system occurred through STC 6/1988 of 21 January, almost ten years after the passage of the Constitution into law.

Download Full-text