Mc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 district · 6 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... [A] child’s entitlement to special education should not depend upon the vigilance of the parents (who may not be sufficiently sophisticated to comprehend the problem) nor be abridged because the district’s behavior did not rise to the level of slothfulness or bad faith. Rather, it is the responsibility of the child’s teachers, therapists, and administrators — and the multi-disciplinary team that annually evaluates the student’s progress — to ascertain the child’s educational needs, respond to deficiencies, and place him or her accordingly.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Middleton v. Dist. of Columbia · Lamoine School Committee v. MS Z. Ex Rel. N.S.

2. “[A] school district that knows or should know that a child has an inappropriate IEP or is not receiving more than a de minimis educational benefit must correct the situation. If it fails to do so, a disabled child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, but excluding the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D.B. v. Ocean Township Board of Education · Fisher v. Bd. of Educ. Christina Sch. Dist.

3. “Federal courts began awarding compensatory education after the Supreme Court determined in School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359, 370-71 , 105 S.Ct. 1996 , 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985), that tuition reimbursement was appropriate under the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1461 (1982) ([the] predecessor [of the Disabilities Education Act]). In a typical reimbursement scenario, a parent who believed that a child was not receiving an appropriate public education would place the child in private education at his or her own expense. Under Burlington, if a court later determined that the private placement was the appropriate one, the school district would have to reimburse the parent.... Extending the Burlington decision, the Eighth Circuit in Miener v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 749, 754 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 215 , 74 L.Ed.2d 171 (1982), awarded compensatory education. The court reasoned that, like retroactive tuition reimbursement, compensatory education required school districts to “ ‘belatedly pay expenses that [they] should have paid all along.’ ” Id. at 753 (quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71 , 105 S.Ct. 1996 , 85 L.Ed.2d 385 ). The court “was confident that Congress did not intend the child’s entitlement to free education to turn upon her parent’s ability to ‘front’ its costs.” Id. In Lester H.[v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 , 872 (3d Cir.1990)], we adopted the position of the Miener Court and approved a com”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Montour School District v. S.T.