Citation network
Honig Vs. Doe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 20, 1988
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
-
U.S. 305 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Honig v. DoeSearch
-
U.S. 305 (1988) Honig v. DoeSearch
-
obviousness or congressional inadvertence, since, in drafting the statute, Congress devoted close attention to Mills v. BoardSearch
-
of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866, and Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
typically without Page 484 U. S. 310 any consultation with, or even notice to, their parents. See Mills v. BoardSearch
-
Retarded Children v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
right to public education in participating States, see Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. RowleySearch
-
to do so. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the orders with slight modifications. Doe v. MaherSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
conflicted with that of several other Courts of Appeals which had recognized a dangerousness exception, compare Doe v. MaherSearch
-
supra, (case below), with Jackson v. FranklinSearch
-
Victoria L. v. DistrictSearch
-
S-1 v. TurlingtonSearch
-
Article III of the Constitution, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. Nebraska Press Assn. v. StuartSearch
-
cannot substitute for the actual case or controversy that an exercise of this Court's jurisdiction requires. Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
will repeat the type of misconduct that would once again place him or her at risk of that injury. See Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
-
a real and substantial threat of such action in any California school district in which he enrolled. Cf. Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
-
Burlington School Committee v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
-
disabled children from classes. In drafting the law, Congress was largely guided by the recent decisions in Mills v. BoardSearch
-
noted, parents may bypass the administrative process where exhaustion would be futile or inadequate. See Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
e)(2), see Doe v. BrooklineSearch
-
the very case he cites for this proposition described these standards in the disjunctive, see Murphy v. HuntSearch
-
based on expectations that, while reasonable, were hardly demonstrably probable. See, e.g., Burlington Northern R. Co. v. MaintenanceSearch
-
California Coastal Comm'n v. GraniteSearch
-
Press-Enterprise Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
Globe Newspaper Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
that Jane Roe would again both have an unwanted pregnancy and wish to exercise her right to an abortion. See Roe v. WadeSearch
-
we defer to the construction adopted by the agency charged with monitoring and enforcing the statute. See INS v. Cardoza-FonsecaSearch
-
exclusion that Congress found so objectionable. Indeed, despite its broad injunction, the District Court in Mills v. BoardSearch
-
that school officials could suspend disabled children on a short-term, temporary basis. See id. at 880. Cf. Goss v. LopezSearch
-
review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. This doctrine was clearly articulated in United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
at 340 U. S. 39 . The rule has been followed fairly consistently over the last 30 years. See, e.g., Preiser v. NewkirkSearch
-
SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
III of the Constitution. There is no doubt that our recent cases have taken that position. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. StuartSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
Liner v. JafcoSearch
-
U. S. 306 , n. 3 (1964). But it seems very doubtful that the earliest case I have found discussing mootness, Mills v. GreenSearch
-
was first stated by this Court in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICCSearch
-
Id. at 219 U. S. 515 . The exception was explained again in Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
Citation omitted). It is also worth noting that Moore v. OgilvieSearch
-
involved a question which had been mooted by an election, just as did Mills v. GreenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Honig v. DoeSearch
-
Mills v. BoardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial