Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677,704 (1979).
2.
Canutillo Independent School District v. Leija, 101 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1996).
3.
DeMitchellT. A. and FosseyR.1977a. The Limits of Law-Based School Reform: Vain Hopes and False Promises.Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.
4.
DeMitchellT. A. and FosseyR.1997b. “Should Schools Escape Liability for Sexual Abuse? A Discussion of respondeat superior and Special Relationships: Protection for Adults and the School Child's Lament,” International Journal of Educational Reform, 6:239–247.
5.
Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 106 F.3d 1223 (5th Cir. 1997).
6.
FosseyR., DeMitchellT. A., and RobertsN. M.1998. “Title IX Liability for School Districts When Employees Sexually Assault Children: A Law and Policy Analysis.” 124 Ed. Law Rep. [485].
7.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 112 S. Ct. 1028, 1031 (1992).
GregoryR.1997. “Rowinsky, Leija, and Rosa H.: The Fifth Circuit Does the Texas Three Step and Limits a Student's Right to Recover for Sexual Harassment.” 121 Ed. Law Rep. [881].
10.
Leija v. Canutillo Independent School District, 887 F.Supp. 947 (W.D. Tex. 1995).
11.
MangoKimberly A. “Students versus Professors: Combatting Sexual Harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” 23 Connecticut Law Review, 355, (1991).
12.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 9 1986).
13.
Rosa H. v. Santa Elizario Independent School District, 106 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. 1997).