Roncker ex rel. Roncker v. Walter’s Empirical Analysis
700 F.2d 1058 · 1983
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Town of Burlington v. Department of Education (1984), Roland M. v. Concord School Committee (1990)
60 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 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. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 1415 (§ 4235 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Califano v. Yamasaki · Connecticut v. Mohegan Tribe
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n some cases, a placement which may be considered better for academic reasons may not be appropriate because of the failure to provide for mainstreaming.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children * * * are to be educated with children who are not handicapped, and that * * * removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment [should occur] only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus the provision that a reviewing court base its decision on the 'preponderance of the evidence’ is by no means an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review. The very importance which Congress has attached to compliance with certain procedures in the preparation of an IEP [Individualized Educational Program] would be frustrated if a court were permitted simply to set state decisions at naught. The fact that § 1415(e) requires that the reviewing court ‘receive the records of the [state’s] administrative proceedings’ carries with it the implied requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings.””
8 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.