Citation network
Bennett Vs. Kentucky Doe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 1985
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Bennett v. KentuckySearch
-
DOE - 470 U.S. 656 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Bennett v. KentuckySearch
-
DOE, 470 U.S. 656 (1985) Bennett v. KentuckySearch
-
agreed to abide by Title I's requirements as a condition for receiving funds. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
This case, like Bennett v. NewSearch
-
was no evidence of bad faith and the State's programs complied with a reasonable interpretation of the law. Kentucky v. SecretarySearch
-
disagree with the standard adopted by the Court of Appeals, we reverse. I As explained more fully in Bennett v. NewSearch
-
complied with a reasonable interpretation of the law. Ibid. Relying on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Page 470 U. S. 663 is more in the nature of an effort to collect upon a debt than a penal sanction. See Bell v. NewSearch
-
absolves a State from liability if funds were in fact spent contrary to the terms of the grant agreement. In Bell v. NewSearch
-
of Title I funds depended on any subjective intent attributable to grant recipients. Instead, Bell v. NewSearch
-
Finally, we do not agree that Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
to participate in the program agreed to abide by the requirements of Title I as a condition for receiving funds. Bell v. NewSearch
-
the findings are supported by substantial evidence and reflect an application of the proper legal standards. Bennett v. NewSearch
-
Bell v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
regulations. Although we agree with the State that Title I grant agreements had a contractual aspect, see Bennett v. NewSearch
-
cannot be viewed in the same manner as a bilateral contract governing a discrete transaction. Cf. United States v. SeckingerSearch
-
resolve every possible ambiguity concerning particular applications of the requirements of Title I. Cf. Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , 467 U. S. 844 (1984). As we noted in Bennett v. NewSearch
-
impose liability for expenditures made in reliance upon an earlier interpretation provided by the Department, cf. Bell v. NewSearch
-
to the present Department of Education, and was responsible for the administration of Title I until 1980. See Bell v. NewSearch
-
In Bell v. NewSearch
-
nor Bell v. NewSearch
-
we need not decide whether the latter section is remedial, rather than substantive, and thus retroactive. Cf. Bennett v. NewSearch
-
Congress does not definitively establish the meaning of an earlier enactment, it does have some persuasive value. Bell v. NewSearch
-
claim. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39, 43. Accordingly, we do not address the application of the defense of estoppel. Cf. Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
whether the Secretary could demand repayment for no more than a technical violation of a grant agreement. Cf. Bell v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bennett v. KentuckySearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Bennett v. NewSearch
-
Kentucky v. SecretarySearch
-
See Bell v. NewSearch
-
Instead, Bell v. NewSearch
-
Cf. United States v. SeckingerSearch
-
of Title I. Cf. Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
Cf. Bennett v. NewSearch
-
Cf. Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
Cf. Bell v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial