The complaint challenged the district's failure to provide several Evergreen students with the special education services the District was obligated to provide.
Not exact matches
Market Synergy's
complaint, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the
District of Kansas,
challenges only the Department's conduct in adopting the revisions to PTE 84 - 24, «which contradicted the revisions announced in the Department's notice of proposed rulemaking.»
I've seen their
challenges first hand and heard their
complaints, which is why I recently said quite sincerely, «I've come to believe that there are few jobs on this planet harder than managing a
district's school food program.»
Incredibly, within a week of the ruling and with three weeks remaining on the deadline for filing an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Reading School
District filed a new
complaint in Commonwealth Court
challenging No Child Left Behind.
Their concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion argued: (1) the court should not have reached the issue because: «n reaching the merits of the Section 10
challenge, the court ignores the fact that the Duncan
complaint (which raised the Section 10
challenge) was dismissed by the
district court for failure to state a claim under NRCP 12 (b)(5);» and (2) the issue is one of first impression, which the justices, in dissent, said is «not as well - defined and easily resolved as my colleagues suggest,... the proper action here, had a majority of this court not determined that SB 302's funding is unconstitutional, would be to remand this matter to the
district court for further proceedings and factual development as to this claim.»
«I don't think we've gotten a single
complaint in the past year and a half dealing with the PowerUp program,» said P. Gayle Fallon, the president of the 6,000 - member Houston Federation of Teachers, which is currently involved in a lawsuit
challenging the
district's use of controversial statistical methods to gauge teacher performance.
Two ethanol trade groups — the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy — have filed a
complaint in Federal
District Court in Fresno, California,
challenging the constitutionality of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
In 2010, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) also filed a legal
challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) with the US
District Court, Eastern
District of California, Fresno Division, echoing the
complaints of the ethanol groups.
In 2009, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy filed a
complaint in Federal
District Court in Fresno, California,
challenging the constitutionality of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).