The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
042849po-pdf•C. N., Individually v. Ridgewood Board of Education
042849po-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitDec 1, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2849
C. N., Individually and as
Guardian Ad Litem of J.N., a Minor;
L. M., Individually and as
Guardian Ad Litem of V.M., a Minor;
M. E., Individually and as
Guardian Ad Litem of J.E., a Minor,
Appellants
v.
RIDGEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION;
FREDERICK J. STOKLEY; JOYCE SNIDER;
RONALD VERDICCHIO; ROBERT WEAKLEY;
JOHN MUCCIOLO; ANTHONY BENCIVENGA;
SHEILA BROGAN
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 00-cv-01072)
District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares
Argued April 1, 2005
Before: ALITO, SMITH and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed December 1,
2005, be amended as follows:
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Page 31, the last two sentences in the first full paragraph, which read:
We explain both conclusions in Part V, sub-sections A & B.
Then, in Part VI, we explain why, even assuming the survey
was involuntary, no constitutional violations have been
shown.
shall read:
We explain both conclusions in Part IV, sub-sections A & B.
Then, in Part V, we explain why, even assuming the survey
was involuntary, no constitutional violations have been
shown.
By the Court,
/s/ D. Michael Fisher
Circuit Judge
Dated: December 12, 2005
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.