Jump to content

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 6 June 2016 (Substing templates: {{scite}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Argued November 4, 1998
Decided March 3, 1999
Full case nameCedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., a minor, by his mother and next friend, Charlene F.
Citations526 U.S. 66 (more)
119 S. Ct. 992; 143 L. Ed. 2d 154
Case history
Prior106 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirmed)
Holding
The exception for "medical services" from IDEA's related services provision only exempts services which must be provided by a physician.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentThomas, joined by Kennedy
Laws applied
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required the provision of certain supportive services for a ventilator-dependent child despite arguments from the school district concerning the costs of the services. Relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U. S. 883 (1984), the Court in a seven to two decision continued to support the "bright line" rule stating that only medical services which must be provided by a physician are not required to be supplied by the school districts. This decision has been hailed by disability advocates as a substantial victory for families of children with disabilities while the Court's dissent noted that the decision "blindsides unwary states. The Court's decision has increased interest in IDEA funding. Amendments have been offered to S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to increase IDEA funding.