⒈ Court Case Summary

Saturday, November 20, 2021 2:31:32 AM

Court Case Summary



The Court Case Summary board permits community Court Case Summary and non-students to Court Case Summary school Court Case Summary for a wide variety of civic Court Case Summary recreational purposes such Housing Choice Voucher Case Study luncheons, homeowner Court Case Summary meetings, seminars, Court Case Summary athletic activities. In its statement of interestthe United States Court Case Summary the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Court Case Summary prohibit discrimination against Court Case Summary because Court Case Summary their sex, including because a student is Aphrodite Marble Statue. On August 5,the private Court Case Summary brought Court Case Summary school desegregation case to enjoin Court Case Summary Monroe City School District from Court Case Summary to operate racially segregated schools. The district-wide review Court Case Summary agreement grew Court Case Summary of an investigation of a complaint regarding Court Case Summary Fred Lynn Middle Court Case Summary. Directions as to documents and evidence may then be limited at this stage to the question of Compare And Contrast Three Influential Theoretical Frameworks On Team Creativity.

How To Read, Understand and Summarise Legal Cases Quickly

The Court maintains this website as a public service to enhance access to public information. This service is continually under development, and it will be updated as events take place and court resources permit. Visitors to this site agree that the Court is not liable for errors or omissions of any of the information provided. Visitors further consent to access the record only as instructed by the Court and consent to the Court's monitoring of access to the records. The Court may deny access to a member of the public for failure to comply with any of these conditions of use.

This website is governed and construed by the laws of the State of California and the California Rules of Court. On January 24, , as part of a district-wide consolidation plan, the court approved a consent order adopting LISD's revised attendance zones. On February 28, , the court declared that LISD was partially unitary and had eliminated all vestiges of past de jure discrimination to the extent practicable in its facilities, transportation, extracurricular activities, and staff assignment.

Following a comprehensive review of the school district's policies and practices, and subsequent negotiations, on December 22, , the court approved the parties' proposed consent order. The Section is monitoring the district's compliance with this consent order, which requires LISD to publicize and broadly disseminate the application and assessment procedures it uses to admit students to the Hudson PEP Elementary School magnet program; permit and facilitate majority-to-minority transfers between certain schools; provide equal access to pre-advanced placement courses at its middle schools; and publicize and broadly disseminate its gifted-and-talented program admission procedures.

The settlement agreement requires that PDE monitor the AEDY system to ensure that students with disabilities are not placed in AEDY in a manner that discriminates based on disability; that they are not unnecessarily segregated within AEDY programs on the basis of disability; that they are not denied equal educational opportunities; and that students with disabilities are transferred back to their home schools in a timely manner.

In addition, the agreement will require all local educational agencies referring EL students to AEDY to establish an EL service plan to ensure EL students are provided appropriate services. The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement. For more information, please see this press release. In this longstanding school desegregation case, the Section and a class of black plaintiffs opposed the school district's proposal, among other things, to build five new schools.

The Section contended that the district's proposal would not further desegregation of the district's schools, would not afford black students equal educational opportunities, and would impose disproportionate transportation burdens on black students. The school district's transportation records showed, for example, that some black high-school students were required to ride a bus up to nearly two and one-half hours each way to and from school, while white students were bussed no longer than forty-five minutes to and from the same school; nonetheless, the school district proposed to build a new high school at a location that would reduce the transportation times of white students while maintaining the transportation times of black students.

The Section also alleged that the school district had failed to comply with existing desegregation orders in the areas of faculty and staff hiring, assignment and compensation; transportation; facilities; and curriculum. After a seven-day evidentiary trial in May , the district court issued an order approving the school district's construction plan, but requiring the school district to address several of the matters about which we had complained.

Among other things, the district court ordered the school district to take steps to reduce the transportation times to school for black students. The Section and the plaintiff class appealed from the district court's order relating to new construction. At the request of the Section and the plaintiff class, the district court entered an order "staying," or putting on hold, the school district's proposed new construction, pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into settlement discussions. In April the parties signed and the district court approved a consent order that both required the school district to address areas of its alleged non-compliance with federal law and resolved all but one of the issues on appeal.

The remaining issue on appeal was whether the school district's proposed site for a new high school was consistent with the district's affirmative desegregation obligations. On November 6, , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that allowed construction of the new high school to proceed at the contested location. In December , the district court entered an order establishing a bi-racial advisory committee. On August 5, , the private plaintiffs brought this school desegregation case to enjoin the Monroe City School District from continuing to operate racially segregated schools. The United States joined the case as amicus curiae in and intervened in the lawsuit in On September 25, , the Court declared the District unitary with respect to student assignment and transportation, but declined to pronounce the District unitary as to teacher and principal assignments.

In addition, the Court found that the District had not complied with the March 30, Consent Decree. On December 11, , the Court entered a Consent Decree designed to remedy teacher and principal assignment and course offerings. Among other actions, the board must take steps to equalize course offerings and ensure that the racial makeup and credentials of the teachers and administrators at any given school does not indicate that a school is intended for black students or white students.

On March 23, , in the interest of securing full compliance with the letter and spirit of the December Consent Decree, the United States and the District jointly filed a motion for the extension of certain deadlines therein. Under the agreement, the school district will take a number of steps to ensure that the student, whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district. The agreement resolves a complaint filed in October As detailed in the closure letter sent to the district, the complaint alleged that the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity at school and on a school-sponsored overnight trip because he is transgender.

Under the agreement, the district will work with a consultant to support and assist the district in creating a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes; amend its policies and procedures to reflect that gender-based discrimination, including discrimination based on a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes, is a form of discrimination based on sex; and train administrators and faculty on preventing gender-based discrimination and creating a nondiscriminatory school environment for transgender students.

Additionally, the district will take a number of steps to treat the student like all other male students in the education programs and activities offered by the district. The district-wide provisions of the agreement will be in place until the end of the school year. The student-specific provisions of the agreement will be in place as long as the student is enrolled in the district. On July 23, , the Section and the U. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U. Barbers Hill Independent School District. Plaintiffs further allege that the District retaliated against one of the parents in violation of Title IX.

On June 21, , the District filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing primarily that Fifth Circuit precedent establishes a per se rule barring judicial review of all school hair length regulations and that a parent lacks standing to bring a Title IX retaliation claim. On January 28, , Mississippi was sued for maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education. Plaintiffs argued that Mississippi denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty members by favoring the State's historically white colleges and universities at the expense of its historically black colleges and universities, and by failing to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in the former de jure dual system.

On April 21, , the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring Mississippi's higher education system into conformity with constitutional and statutory provisions. After a trial, the district court and appellate court found for the defendants, but, in , the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case to the district court to determine if Mississippi had taken the necessary steps to ensure that a student's choice of college was indeed free and unconstrained by Mississippi's former discriminatory policies.

The case marked the first time that the Supreme Court defined the applicable legal standards for higher education desegregation. Endorsed by the Mississippi legislature, the settlement will fund a comprehensive plan over a seventeen-year period aimed at improving academic programs, making capital improvements, and expanding summer programs at the State's historically black colleges and universities. The State also will recognize the historically black Jackson State University as a comprehensive university. The district court dismissed the case, but has retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

On January 30, , the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. The consent order declares that the District has already met its desegregation obligations in the area of transportation. This longstanding desegregation case was filed in by private plaintiffs, with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and local cooperating attorneys serving as counsel. The United States intervened later that year.

In , the Fifth Circuit entered a desegregation order permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of the Meridian schools. In , as part of efforts to enforce the desegregation order, the department began to investigate complaints that the District had implemented a harsh and punitive student discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion, and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian schools. The department found that these kinds of disparities persisted even when the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a proposed consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 22, Along with the proposed consent decree, the parties jointly filed a motion to approve the decree , and the United States separately filed a memorandum of law. Under the consent decree, the district will take steps to create safe and inclusive learning environments in all Meridian schools, including providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems.

On May 30, , the Court adopted the consent order. For more information regarding the proposed consent decree, please see this press release. Quinnipiac University. Plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, and that this failure constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and 34 C. The United States' amicus brief provided guidance as to what constitutes a genuine participation opportunity, as well as guidance concerning what constitutes a sport for Title IX compliance.

The Successor Agreement requires, inter alia: accurate and timely identification of ELL students; appropriate ESL and SEI services provided by qualified faculty; meaningful communications with Limited English Proficient parents through translations and qualified interpreters; assessments and services specially designed to meet the needs of ELL students who face unique challenges, such as students with disabilities and students with interrupted formal education; and greater access for ELL students to the higher-level learning opportunities in BPS. To ensure these programmatic changes are effective, the agreement further requires BPS to evaluate the effect of these changes on student achievement over time through robust, disaggregated data analyses.

For more information on both agreements, please see the press release and press release. Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; ELLs' access to basic skills instruction, special education services, and academic enrichment programs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; and monitoring of students currently enrolled in the ELL program and those students who have exited from the program. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on October 16, , entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA.

The agreement required the district to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of current and former ELLs. After the district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement, the agreement ended on January 12, On June 17, , the Section and the U. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.

West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. In this case, the plaintiff, an year-old girl who is transgender, challenged H. She asked the court to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing H. The plaintiff alleged that H. The plaintiff also alleges that H. In its statement of interest , the United States advised the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender. The United States concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on these claims in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction.

Memorandum and Order - B. West Virginia State Board of Education. On November 13, , the Section and the U. The Section initiated its investigation in response to a complaint by a group of parents alleging that their children had been subject to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment, including assault, that went unaddressed by the District. As a result, their children feared for their safety and several withdrew from the school. Under the Agreement, the District will take a number of steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on sex.

Under the Agreement, the District will provide particularized training for students and faculty at the elementary school implicated in the complaint, and will conduct climate surveys at that school to assess the presence and effects of harassment and bullying, the inclusiveness and safety of the educational environment, and the effectiveness of the measures taken pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement will be in place through the school year.

In November , the State appealed the ruling, and then subsequently settled the appeal and all of D. On September 8, , the Division and the State settled the matter in a two-year settlement agreement that requires the State to respond in a timely and effective manner to credible evidence that LEAs are failing to serve their ELLs, including notifying them of violations and providing a protocol by which they must submit to CDE documented evidence that resolves the violations.

For more information, please see the press release. In this religious discrimination case, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the school board excluded them from using school facilities for a "prayer meeting" at which civic and social issues would be discussed. The school board permits community groups and non-students to use school facilities for a wide variety of civic and recreational purposes such as luncheons, homeowner association meetings, seminars, and athletic activities. The policy permits groups to use school facilities to engage in discussions having a "religious viewpoint," but not to engage in "religious services or instruction.

On April 25, , the Section filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, arguing that 1 plaintiffs' proposed meeting fits well within the forum created under the school board's facility use policy, and 2 there is no legal or practical distinction between religious viewpoints on a topic and "religious services or instruction. On July 10, , the court held a hearing on the parties' motions in which the Section participated. On July 29, , the court issued an order granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs' proposed meeting was primarily a religious service, it also included a discussion of family and political issues from a legally protected religious viewpoint.

Thus, the court held that the proposed meeting was not "mere religious worship," but included speech that the school district permitted through its facility use policy. The school district therefore improperly denied the plaintiffs access to school facilities for their evening meeting. On February 19, , the case was dismissed. The United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with Spanish-speaking LEP parents and guardians, even when their need for an interpreter was documented or otherwise evident. The United States also found that the school district did not consistently translate essential written information into Spanish, and asked parents who can only communicate in Spanish to make important decisions about school programs and services without explaining the options in a language they understand.

The agreement requires, among other things, that the district take proactive steps by: developing and implementing effective language access policies and procedures; training faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and guardians; informing LEP parents and guardians of their right to language access services at special-education related meetings and receive translated special-education related documents; and providing a language-assessment report and bi-annual compliance reports to DOJ. For more information, please see this press release and a translated version in Spanish.

A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish. The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of , which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws.

Then, on February 4, , the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups. On June 19, , a settlement agreement was reached that will ensure that this rural district takes appropriate action to serve its small but growing population of ELL students, including: increasing services for ELL students, obtaining additional English as a Second Language-certified instructors, conducting significant professional development for teachers, providing adequate materials and classroom supports for ELL students, monitoring the academic performance of current and former ELL students and improving language-accessible communication with limited English proficient parents.

They contended that MHSAA refused to sanction additional sports for high school girls, provided inferior practice and playing facilities for post-season tournaments held in certain girls' sports, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons. This last contention allegedly reduced participation opportunities for high school girls by shortening playing seasons, thereby preventing participation in club competitions and all-star competitions involving players from other states and negatively affecting their chances of being recruited for collegiate-level sports programs.

On September 7, , the Section was granted leave to participate as litigating amicus curiae and filed an amicus brief at the summary judgment stage, arguing that the case should go forward under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On January 21, , the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, allowing the case to proceed to trial. In the summer of , the parties participated in mediation which resulted in a settlement of all claims except for the issue of playing seasons. The court conducted a two-week bench trial in September and received evidence concerning the following questions: 1 whether MHSAA, by assuming controlling authority over interscholastic athletics from member schools that receive federal funds, is subject to Title IX; 2 whether MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.

On December 17, , the court issued its ruling finding in favor of the plaintiffs and the Section on all three issues. See Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n , F. Lastly, the court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling of girls' sports. The Section filed an opposition to the compliance plan in June After reviewing briefing on the issue of the remedial plan and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court issued a ruling requiring MHSAA to switch girls' basketball and volleyball to their traditional, advantageous seasons of the winter and fall respectively.

The Court ultimately approved the rest of MHSAA's remedial plan, finding that the switching of the remaining sports at issue soccer, golf, tennis, swimming, and diving balanced the inequity of nontraditional playing seasons amongst high school boys and girls in Michigan. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Division filed an amicus brief in August On August 16, , the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that again affirmed the district court's ruling that the sports schedule discriminates against female athletes on the basis of sex. On December 7, , the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.

The consent decree requires the district to implement comprehensive measures to ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to succeed academically in district educational programs, starting with the proper identification of ELL students when they enter DPS. The complaint also alleges that OCR has not recognized competitive cheerleading as a sport under Title IX and that even if it were recognized as a sport, the new policy exempts nearly nine times as many boys than girls from the reductions in their competition schedule. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July1, The brief also argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the Title IX and Equal Protection claims will succeed on the merits, and that the court should preliminarily enjoin new Policy 6.

The agreement requires the District to improve and increase language instruction for EL students so they can become fluent in English and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects. The agreement will remain in place for three full school years. For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish. In this longstanding desegregation case involving the Franklin County Board of Education North Carolina , the Section monitors the school district's compliance with existing court orders.

The school district achieved partial unitary status in certain areas in and additional areas in On April 13, , the school district moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that it had attained unitary status. On November 22, , the Section filed a memorandum opposing, in part, the school district's motion. On June 24, , the district court held that the school district was partially unitary with respect to school transportation, extracurricular activities, school construction and facilities, student transfers, and faculty desegregation.

A new student assignment plan was approved in a May order. Separately, counsel for Plaintiffs asked the Court to require the school district to provide notice of the proposed changes and invite public comment before dismissing any part of the Order. Having provided the public appropriate notice and an opportunity to submit comments pursuant to a court-approved schedule, the United States and the school district filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Support on December 14, , to declare the District partially unitary with respect to desegregation of staff and the following quality of education areas governed by the Order: academic achievement, advanced course offerings and enrollment, special education program, and student dropouts.

The court granted the joint motion in an order dated December 18, The hearing officer agreed with R. According to the U. The board challenged the validity of the statutory and regulatory stay put provisions, and the Section filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U. Department of Education to defend both provisions. The Section argued that the regulation was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provision and that the statutory provision was a valid exercise of the Spending Clause power.

On January 18, , the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Covington Independent Public Schools to ensure the District does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. The agreement will guarantee that the District provides reasonable modifications of school policy for students with disabilities to avoid the use of exclusionary discipline, isolation, seclusion, or restraint, and contact with law enforcement.

The agreement will also replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate. As a part of the settlement agreement, the District will continue its current practice of not stationing School Resource Officers SROs at elementary schools; cease requesting SROs to enforce disciplinary rules; eliminate the use of seclusion and isolation rooms; prohibit the use of restraints unless there is imminent danger to the physical safety of the student or others; develop a protocol to identify students who are disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals, particularly those students who receive exclusionary discipline as a result, and provide those students with interventions and supports intended to reduce disciplinary actions; take prompt and effective steps to help students who are in crisis; implement a code of conduct that focuses on positive interventions, rather than punitive discipline; and train administrators and teachers on how to provide all students with effective interventions and supports.

On August 7, , Cleveland Central High School and Cleveland Central Middle School opened in Cleveland, Mississippi, a major milestone in this longstanding desegregation case, which was initially filed in by private plaintiffs the United States intervened in On May 2, , the United States had filed a motion for further relief asking the court to find that the district had violated its desegregation obligations under several previously-entered desegregation orders governing the District, and to compel the district's compliance with federal law.

In its brief , the United States argued that, while the district had been governed by desegregation orders for more than 42 years, the predominantly black schools on the east side of the District had never been desegregated. The United States further asserted that the ratio of black and white faculty at numerous District schools reinforced the reputation of those schools in the community as "white" or "black" schools. The district filed an opposition brief on August 18, , and the United States filed a reply brief on October 6, In an opinion issued on March 28, , the court determined that two schools, a middle school and high school that were formerly de jure black schools, had never been desegregated.

The court also found that the ratio of black and white faculty at every school in the District deviated from the district-wide faculty ratio. The court ordered the district to submit a proposed desegregation plan addressing these issues. On February 21, , the United States filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its remedial order, arguing in its brief that "freedom of choice" was an inadequate remedy in this case. The Court denied the motion in an April 30, order. On April 1, , following the United States' appeal of the court's remedial order, the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. On January 23, , the United States submitted a proposed desegregation plan to the Court. The district filed two separate plans.

The United States objected to the District's plans on February 13, and responded to the District's objections to its plan on February 27, The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on the proposed plans in May On May 13, , the Court approved the U. On August 13, , the Department and the district entered into a comprehensive, multi-part Settlement Agreement. The agreement requires the district to ensure all of its ELL students, most of whom are native Arabic speakers, receive appropriate English as a Second Language and sheltered content instruction taught by teachers who are properly qualified and trained.

The district also must provide ELL students and limited English proficient parents with meaningful access to important information, including discipline and special education materials and procedures. Pursuant to the agreement, the district will work with the Department' Community Relations Service to improve parental outreach and community engagement, establish a community advisory panel, and implementing training on cultural competency. The district also will retain a qualified consultant to help it draft a comprehensive recruitment and hiring policy and implement best practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified and diverse faculty and staff.

The district's compliance with the agreement will be monitored for four years. Both the plaintiffs and the district filed cross motions for summary judgment. In October , counsel for the Sikh Coalition filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that a middle school student had been repeatedly targeted with verbal and physical harassment because of his Sikh faith. The United States has authority to investigate and resolve complaints of religious and national origin harassment through its enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of Following an inquiry into the student-specific complaints, the United States notified the district of its concerns that the district had failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Sikh Coalition's allegations of harassment, including allegations that the student was called "Aladdin" because he wore a turban and was told by a fellow student to "go back to his country.

The United States also found that the disciplinary measures the district did take had not been effective in ending the harassment, and that the student feared continued harassment. Calendar: You can look up current and future calendar dates up to 7 days. This information includes time of the hearing, the type of hearing, and the department the hearing is scheduled. Documents: You can access and download court documents if permitted under the California Rules of Court. You must have a case number in order to access documents, and a fee is charged for document downloads. Probate Notes: You must have a case number in order to search Probate Notes.

Probate Notes are last updated in the evening three business days prior to the scheduled hearing to reflect documents filed at least four court days prior to the hearing. Case Number searches are free with the required information. The search will return the case number, and when selected, display the register of actions for that case. This would include Probate Notes for past and future hearings. A fee will be charged for all Searches by Name. A Search by Name returns a list of case numbers and filing dates matching the party name entered. The register of actions will be displayed when a case number is selected.

The U. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required Court Case Summary district to increase Court Case Summary to recruit minority teachers Court Case Summary to Summary: The Precaution Adoption Model that Court Case Summary school had a faculty whose Court Case Summary diversity Court Case Summary reflective of the district-wide faculty. Case Access. Divorce Court Case Summary Documents.

Web hosting by Somee.com