Since 1979 many courts have handed down rulings in favor of handicapped children under the Education of the Handicapped Act. This twentieth chapter in a book on school law summarizes these cases. In "Kruelle v. Biggs," the court ruled that a school district must provide residential placement free of charge if such placement is necessary for the child to learn. In "Springdale School District v. Grace," the Federal District Court, however, found that a district cannot force residential placement on a student if the parents object, even if such placement offers the best education available. In this case, the court applied the "Rowley" formula, holding that each handicapped child must be given an opportunity to achieve full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children. In decisions that have favored school districts, the courts have ruled that the Education of the Handicapped Act usually does not provide money damages nor are plaintiffs entitled to attorneys' fees. In a case that may have implications for the handicapped, the Supreme Court held that Congress's power to regulate recipients when disbursing federal money rests on Congress's ensuring that recipients explicitly understand the precise terms they are agreeing to with acceptance of that money. Typical of such terms not fully understood when federal money was accepted are those defined by the litigation in "S-1 v. Turlington." The ruling in this case was that in a school district accepting federal funds, a handicapped child cannot be expelled. (Author/JM)