# Larry P. v. Riles

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 23, 1984 · 793 F.2d 969

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8941478

## Case

- **Full name:** LARRY P., by his Guardian ad litem, LUCILLE P. M.S., by his Guardian ad litem, Joyce S. M.J., by his Guardian ad litem, Mary H. Sylvia M., by her Guardian at litem, Sylvia W. J.L., by his Guardian ad litem, Selena F. v. Wilson RILES, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, Henry P. Gunderson
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 23, 1984
- **Citations:** 793 F.2d 969
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Skopil
- **Judges:** Enright, Poole, Skopil
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8941478

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that “proof of discriminatory effect suffices to establish liability when the suit is brought to enforce regulations issued pursuant to the statute rather than the statute itself’
- explaining that § 2281 “was repealed in 1976”
- discussing racial bias in IQ tests and upholding district court's order enjoining use of such tests

## Opinion text

SKOPIL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur except for that part of the opinion reversing the district court’s finding of a federal constitutional violation. I believe that it is unnecessary to reach that issue.
The lower court was compelled to address appellees’ federal constitutional claims only because of the uncertainty of the judicial interpretations of Title VI. Larry P., 495 F.Supp. at 974. We now have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of New York, 463 U.S. 582 , 103 S.Ct. 3221 , 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983). I would affirm on the statutory grounds and decline to reach the federal constitutional allegations. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 547 , 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1384 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (federal court should not decide federal constitutional questions where a dispositive nonconstitu-tional ground is available).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8941478. Public record. Not legal advice.