Citation network
Schaffer Vs. Weast
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 14, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Schaffer V. WeastSearch
-
a litigant not have the burden of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary, United States v. NewSearch
-
filed dissenting opinions. Roberts, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Schaffer v. WeastSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Schaffer V. WeastSearch
-
BRIAN SCHAFFER, a minor, by his parents and next friends, JOCELYN and MARTIN SCHAFFER, et al., PETITIONERS v. JERRYSearch
-
Little Rock School Dist. v. MauneySearch
-
Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. RowleySearch
-
of Maryland reversed and remanded, after concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. Brian S. v. VanceSearch
-
Compensation Programs v. GreenwichSearch
-
Honor Center v. HicksSearch
-
J., dissenting). In numerous other areas, we have presumed or held that the default rule applies. See, e.g., Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cleveland v. PolicySearch
-
Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
Doran v. SalemSearch
-
Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. DoyleSearch
-
when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions. See, e.g. , FTC v. MortonSearch
-
placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPASearch
-
in light of their constitutional meaning, and apply the balancing test established by Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Petitioners next contend that we should take instruction from the lower court opinions of Mills v. BoardSearch
-
of Education , 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. C. 1972), and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. CommonwealthSearch
-
United States v. NewSearch
-
see also Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. ConstructionSearch
-
Lessee v. BirthSearch
-
to safeguard the procedural rights of parents and to share information with them. See School Comm. of Burlington v. DepartmentSearch
-
It is so ordered. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Schaffer v. WeastSearch
-
both a statute and its legislative history are silent on the question. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPASearch
-
school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute. Schaffer v. WeastSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Schaffer V. WeastSearch
-
The Court has followed the same counsel. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPASearch
-
Mills v. BoardSearch
-
Retarded Children v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
id. , at 457. Accord Oberti v. BoardSearch
-
Lascari v. BoardSearch
-
will favor educational options that enable them to conserve resources. Deal v. HamiltonSearch
-
in this Court, the United States supported Montgomery County. Schaffer v. WeastSearch
-
Breyer, J., Dissenting Schaffer V. WeastSearch
-
Neal v. McAninchSearch
-
Devine v. IndianSearch
-
Oberti v. BoardSearch
-
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. GarretSearch
-
s remedial scheme with a uniform federal rule. See Kamen v. KemperSearch
-
Petitioners V. JerrySearch
-
Brian S. v. VanceSearch
-
Honor Center v. HicksSearch
-
Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
FTC v. MortonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial