School Dist Sample Clauses

School Dist. EHLR 353:124 (OCR 1988) (district policy of giving school officials discretion in whether to administer needed medication and conditioning the provision of services required by Section 504 or IDEA on parents signing a waiver of liability is prohibited). See further discussion below in the section of this advisory discussing IDEA entitled School Placement Decisions.

School Dist. No.127 1/2, 208 N.E.2d 423 (Ill.App.1, 1965) 60 Ill.App.2d 56 (1st Dist. 1965).

School Dist. EHLR 353:124 (OCR 1988) (blanket waiver of liability as condition to provision of medical services prohibited). For example, a district may not have a blanket policy or general practice that insulin or glucagon administration or other diabetes-related health care service are only going to be provided by district personnel at one school in the district, or that a child will always need to be removed from the classroom in order to receive diabetes related health care services. An IEP developed in the legally-required manner, which takes into account all of the relevant medical and education factors under the IDEA for each disabled child, is the only way to ensure that such a student receives an individualized determination of what constitutes FAPE under the IDEA and relevant state statutes.

School Dist. No.127 1/2, 208 N.E.2d 423 (Ill.App.1, 1965). School District No. 151 v. ISBE, 507 N.E.2d 134 (Ill.App.1, 1987). CROSS REF.: 5:30 (Hiring Process and Criteria), 5:185 (Family and Medical Leave), 5:250 (Leaves of Absence), 5:330 (Sick Days, Vacation, Holidays, and Leaves) March 2012 5:185 General Personnel Family and Medical Leave

School Dist. “Sails” Program amendment; in-kind matches to receive SNAP funds.4 Agreement; Global Emergency Resources; tech support/software maintenance HC Standard Healthcare sys. 152 Agreement; ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Inc., donated oral health supplies to distribute to underserved children 50 Agreement; Hill Country Com. Clinic; training costs/equipment purchases reimb. by CA PH Coop. Agrmt. 136 Agreement; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Foundation; amendment, extends term, Healthy Shasta Program, 46 Agreement; Medical Reserve Corps of Far No. CA; medical/public health emergencies equipment/supplies 136 Agreement; Medical Reserve Corps of Far No. CA; trng costs/equipment purchases reimb by CA PH Coop 136 Agreement; Mountain Communications Inc; amendment, Bunchgrass communication shelter space 176, 177 Agreement; Mountain Valleys Health Ctrs; training costs/equipment purchases reimb by CA PH Coop Agrmt136 Agreement; Nor Cal Rehab Hospital; training costs/equipment purchases, reimb. by CA PH Coop. Agrmt 136 Agreement; Patients’ Hospital; training costs/equipment purchases, reimb by CA Public Health Coop Agrmt136 Agreement; Pit River Health Serv.; training costs/equipment purchases, reimb. by CA PH Coop. Agrmt 136 Agreement; Redding Rancheria; training costs/equipment purchases, reimb. by CA PH Coop. Agrmt 136 Agreement; Redding School District amendment; in-kind matches to receive SNAP funds 4 Agreement; SHASCOM; maintain emergency notification sys., buy/install automatic vehicle location sys. 136 Agreement; Shasta Children & Families First Commission; Co. to provide ongoing support Healthy Shasta 123 Agreement; Shasta Com Health Ctr; training costs/equipment purchases, reimb by CA PH Coop. Agrmt. 136 Agreement; Shasta Co Child Abuse Prev Coord Council; S. Shasta Co Healthy Eating Active Com/Phase 3 175 Agreement; Shasta Growers Assoc; amendmt, inc. comp, food stamp fruit/vegetable purchase/outreach pgm 183 Agreement; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics; lease equip/hardware/software, drug testing reagents & system136 Agreement; Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services, Joint Powers Agreement MOU 71 Agreement; Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services (EMS), local EMS agency services 71 Agreement; Valley Indust. Communications Inc; amendmt relocate/maintain Bunchgrass Mtn repeater 176, 177 Healthy Shasta Coalition, Healthy Shasta Action Heroes Presentation and 2010 Awards 201 IHSS Pub Auth Res 2010-01; Appoints HHSA Adult Svcs Dir to act on behalf w/CSAC Excess Ins. Auth. 177 MOU; CA ...

School Dist. 1 for exam- ple, the court held that an architecture firm was not liable in tort to the project contractors for the preparation of defec- tive plans and specifications. Due to the lack of privity, the court concluded that the architects’ performance obligations were owed solely to the school district, not to the contractors. One consequence of the privity require- ment was to force Arizona contractors to look to the owner for redress. Rather than sue the architect in tort for a defective design, for example, the general contractor would sue the owner in contract for breaching its implied warranty to provide adequate plans and specifications.2 The owner could then turn to the architect for reimbursement of damages arising out of the architect’s defective plans. The privity rule, however, was aban- doned in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction Co. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.3 There, the Arizona Supreme Court expressly held that the lack of privity between a contrac- tor and an architect did not bar an action against the architect for negligent design. According to the Court, the lack of privity did not per se mean that the contractor’s harm was unforeseeable to the architect. Rather, the Court found it “foreseeable in the instant case that [the general contrac- tor], hired to follow the plans and specifi- cations prepared by [the architect], would incur increased costs if those plans and specifications were in error.”4 Thus, under ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, contractors in Arizona may pursue claims directly against design professionals. The court did not explicitly decide whether contractors may recover purely economic damages. Arizona Has Adopted the Economic Loss Doctrine