Board Of Education Of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186 v. Illinois State Board Of Education’s Empirical Analysis
41 F.3d 1162 · 1994
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E. (1999), Heather Kathy v. State of Wisconsin T (1997)
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States · Calder v. Job · Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove · Union School District v. Smith
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (in) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall.grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] court’s inquiry in suits brought under § 1415(e)(2) is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? ' If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once the school district has met these two requirements, the courts cannot require more; the purpose of the IDEA is to 'open the door of public education' to handicapped children, not to educate a handicapped child to her highest potential.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.