![]() ![]() The intermediate court, however, used the appeal as an opportunity to convert the decision into a broader ruling of law to the effect that, whenever “a child has two residences within a school district, the school district must provide transportation services accommodating both residences.” Watts v. ![]() Lancaster May 8, 2013) see Majority Opinion, slip op. CI-12-17815, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, slip op. The common pleas court made particularized findings and conclusions, and it ultimately stated that its holding was limited to the specific factual circumstances before the ourt: a situation wherein both parents live in the school district, the student is subject to an equally split joint legal and physical custody agreement, and a bus from the student’s school has available seats, already serves both homes and could accommodate the student without any further cost or adding an extra stop. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: AugI agree with the result reached by the majority and write to explain why I believe such result should be limited to the circumstances presented. CI-12-17815 dated 5/24/13 ARGUED: ApCONCURRING OPINION MR. 935 CD 2013 dated 1/7/14, reconsideration denied 2/26/14, affirming the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 1 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. MANHEIM TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. ![]() IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |