Neely v. Rutherford County School’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Plaintiff Samantha Neely is a seven year old child who attends school in Rutherford County. Samantha suffers from a medical condition which required that she receive a tracheostomy. As a result of her condition, Samantha must undergo regular suction of throat, nose, and mouth areas in order to avoid serious and, even life threatening, health consequences. There is little dispute concerning many of the facts of this controversy. Samantha Neely suffers from Congenital Central Hypoventilation Syndrome, an extremely rare condition that causes breathing difficulties. Samantha’s tracheostomy procedure was necessary to assist her breathing. The procedure creates an opening in the throat, known as a stoma, through which a breathing tube is inserted. This tube must remain in place at all times, but the tube can be dislodged relatively easily if Samantha coughs or even adjusts her clothing. Should the tube become dislodged, Samantha’s respiratory functions will cease or become shallow, she will lose consciousness, and she will die if full breathing is not quickly restored. As a result of the tracheostomy, Samantha is unable to expel throat, mouth, and nose secretions. Consequently, she must regularly suction her breathing passage by mechanical device to ensure that the secretions do not create a blockage; such a blockage would lead to death if not quickly cleared. The number of times Samantha must be suctioned each day varies with the season and with Samantha’s health. For instance, wh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 968 F. Supp. 385 - Skelly v. Brookfield Lagrange Park School District 95

2. “The district court found the services in question to be “medical in nature.” We believe the better interpretation of Tatro to be that a school district is not required to provide every service which is “medical in nature.” The services at issue in Tatro could be provided by someone other than a nurse and a layperson, with minimum training, could provide it. Tatro, 468 U.S. at 894 , 104 S.Ct. at 3378 . It was, therefore, the kind of service that was not unduly expensive or beyond the range of the school system’s competence. Id. at 892, 104 S.Ct. at 3377 . We believe it is appropriate to take into account the risk involved and the liability factor of the school district inherent in providing a service of a medical nature such as is involved in this controversy____ [W]e agree that the services requested by Samantha are inherently burdensome ... The undue burden derives from the nature of the care involved ... The care requested by Samantha falls within the “medical services” exclusion of the IDEA.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morton Community Unit School District No. 709 v. J.M.

3. “may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cedar Rapids Community School District, v. Garret F., a Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Charlene F.