Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
548 U.S. ___ (2006)

Annotate this Case

548 U. S. ____ (2006)
548 U. S. ____ (2006)
548 U. S. ____ (2006)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 05-18

ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, PETITIONER v. PEARL MURPHY et vir

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[June 26, 2006]

   Justice Souter, dissenting.

   I join Justice Breyer’s dissent and add this word only to say outright what would otherwise be implicit, that I agree with the distinction he draws between this case and Barnes v. Gorman,536 U. S. 181 (2002). See post, at 10–11 (citing Barnes, supra, at 191 (Souter, J., concurring)). Beyond that, I emphasize the importance for me of §4 of the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 797, as amended, 20 U. S. C. A. §1415 note, which mandated the study by what is now known as the Government Accountability Office. That section, of equal dignity with the fee-shifting provision enacted by the same statute, makes Justice Breyer’s resort to the related Conference Report the reasonable course.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.