Skip to:

Court Cases (Special Education) « Education – Special

 

 

Court Cases Related to Special Education

 

 

  • 3rd Circuit Rules That IDEA Statute of Limitations Applies to Claims That Accrued Prior to Enactment (Developments in Special Education Law – 10/31/10)
    The Court reasoned that the time period between IDEA 2004's enactment and the effective date of its statute of limitations (7 months) gave the parent ample time to become aware of the change in the law and a reasonable opportunity to file a claim based on conduct dating back much further than permitted under the 2 year statute of limitations. Steven I. v. Central Bucks School District
  • An Interview with Sandee Winkleman: About a Supreme Court Decision (Education News – Nov. 2, 2007)
    A lawyer tells about a case heard by the Supreme Court involving his son's educational special needs.
  • Ector County ISD v. VB
    5th Circuit: Failure to attend meeting subsequent to resolution session does not defeat parents attorney fee claim.
    Patti's Comment: This is a great decision. School districts all too often attempt to exhaust the families with a million useless meetings in an attempt to persuade them to settle disputes. They even do it when they know the parents can not attend (due to work or other conflicts). Sometimes, believe it or not, they do it to force them to spend money on an attorney with the hope the family will run out of money for their advocate. I'm glad to see someone gets the fact that wasting time does not mean you are not willing to attempt resolution.
  • Supreme Court Splits on Private Tuition (ABA Journal – Oct. 2007)
    Upholds a ruling by the New York City 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed reimbursement even though the parents had not received special education services in the public schools.
  • U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of Two Special Ed Cases (Special Education Law Blog)
    In LM, et al v. Capistrano Unified Sch Dist 538 F.3d 1261, 50 IDELR 181 (9th Cir. 8/19/2008), the Ninth Circuit held that the school district violated state law by limiting the time that a psychologist could observe the student's placement to 20 minute increments, the parents were not thereby deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the IEP review process. Therefore FAPE was provided by the district. The Supremes let the Ninth Circuit decision stand.