Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e .think it clear that '[t]he [stay-put] provision represents Congress' policy choice that all handicapped children, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not, are to remain in their current educational placement until the dispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved.’ ” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Drinker, 78 F.3d at 864 )). . As noted above, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (j) has a second clause specifying that the child,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 3d 660 - Jalen Z. v. School District of Philadelphia · 469 F. Supp. 2d 267 - Ringwood Bd. of Educ. v. KHJ Ex Rel. KFJ

2. “[DJuring the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child.... 5”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. M.R. v. Ridley School District · 469 F. Supp. 2d 267 - Ringwood Bd. of Educ. v. KHJ Ex Rel. KFJ

3. “operative placement actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Navarro Carrilo v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. · 583 F. Supp. 2d 498 - MM Ex Rel. AM v. NY. CITY DEPT. OF EDUC. REG.