Winkelman Ex Rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District’s Empirical Analysis
550 U.S. 516 · 2007
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 59 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 422 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably In re C.S. (2007), Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education (2009)
125 federal appellate · 59 district · 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
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 422 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[IDEA] requires that a State provide “[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint ... with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” § 1415(b)(6). By presenting a complaint a party is able to pursue a process of review that, as relevant, begins with a preliminary meeting “where the parents of the child discuss their complaint” and the local educational agency “is provided the opportunity to [reach a resolution].” § 1415(f)(l)(B)(i)(IV). If the agency “has not resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of the parents within 30 days,” § 1415(f)(l)(B)(ii), the parents may request an “impartial due process hearing,” § 1415(f)(1)(A), which must be conducted either by the local educational agency or by the state educational agency, ibid., and where a hearing officer will resolve issues raised in the complaint, § 1415(f)(3).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, in certain circumstances [IDEA] allows a court or hearing officer to require a state agency “to reimburse the parents [of a child with a disability] for the cost of [private school] enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child.” § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). Second, it sets forth rules governing when and to what extent a court may award attorney’s fees. See § 1415(i)(3)(B). Included in this section is a provision allowing an award “to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“grants parents independent, enforceable rights”
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.