School principals perform a crucial role in discharging a school system's legal obligations toward the handicapped. Since principals are unable to supply money damages, they are rarely primary targets of lawsuits involving handicapped children, but their role in representing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to parents is critical. Thus, legal problems over IEPs inevitably involve the principal. Sixteen recent court cases are analyzed as representing problematic issues, which may be summarized as follows: (1) the school district's financial responsibility in cases of disputed placements (Adams Central v. Deist, Rowe v. Henry County Board, Clevenger v. Oak Ridge Board, Doe v. Anrig, Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts); (2) the appropriateness of placing blind students in an allegedly earthquake-prone school site (Students of California School for the Blind v. Honig; (3) a district's reevaluation of an IEP without parental permission (Carroll v. Capalbo); (4) whether placements made without proper testing or parental permission were discriminatory (Carter v. Orleans Parish Schools); (5) a district's financial and operational responsibilities for special transportation (Dubois v. Connecticut State Board, Hurry v. Jones) and whether a change in transportation constitutes a change in placement (DeLeon v. Susquehanna Community School District); (6) protection under governmental immunity laws for school staff in cases of misdiagnosis (Brosnan v. Livonia Schools); (7) whether a district may be required to provide some disabled children with more than the standard number of instructional days (Crawford v. Pittman); (8) the extent of the district's responsibility to provide special instruction assistance (Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Board); (9) the circumstances under which a district must pay attorney's fees (Irving Schools v. Tatro); and (10) the extent of a district's responsibility for special medical assistance (State of Hawaii v. Katherine D.). (MCG)