Case Citator › Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board

Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
121 F.3d 576
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
61 of 61
Citing cases (total)
61
Treatment dates
2023
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board was declined by the Fifth Circuit on its categorical reading of the federal right to proceed without counsel. The Eleventh Circuit continues to apply Devine’s rule that a nonlawyer parent cannot litigate a child’s claims.
More on how this was screened

Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District recognized parents' own IDEA rights but expressly left open whether they may litigate their child's claims without counsel, so it did not decide Devine's holding. All 61 flagged citations have been read; the one confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

61 later cases cite Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board; 61 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Fifth Circuit rejected the absolute bar on parents litigating their children’s claims without counsel that it attributed to Devine, holding that federal or state law may make the child’s case the parent’s own for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

    Raskin v. Dallas Independent School District · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Today, we hold that an absolute bar on pro se parent representation is inconsistent with § 1654, which allows a pro se parent to proceed on behalf of her child in federal court when the child’s case is the parent’s “own.” ... Our unpublished cases 6 and authority from other circuits 7 have adopted an absolute bar against pro se parent representation without fully ... Devine v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Winkelman, 550 U.S. at 535; ... accounting for the text of § 1654. At best, those cases assert that § 1654 “does not speak to the issue” of “whether [the parent] may plead or conduct his [child’s] case,” Devine, 121 F.3d at 581
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Devine ex rel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace