Smith v. Squillacote’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 district ·
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
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Honig v. Doe · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Kerkam v. McKenzie · Riley v. Ambach
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to ensure that parents receive sufficient information about where the agency proposes to place their child and why that placement was chosen, so that parents may reach an informed conclusion about whether the placement will provide an appropriate education. The information in the notice, along with the IEP, the MDT Report, and all other information the agency has provided to the parents, should enable them to decide whether to contest the placement. If the notice provides such information, then it is sufficient.”
1 later decision 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.