Spielberg ex rel. Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 256 · 1988
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Roland M. v. Concord School Committee (1990), Doyle v. Arlington County School Board (1991)
25 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 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. § 1415
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Hall v. Vance County Board of Education · Stout v. Home Life Ins. Co. · Burger v. Murray County School District
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the EHA [the predecessor to the IDEA], the general rule is that placement should be based on the IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.552 . The appendix interpreting the EHA regulations states that “IEP objectives must be written before placement.” 34 C.F.R. Part 300, App. C., Question 42. The decision to place Jonathan at Randolph before developing an IEP on which to base that placement violates this regulation as interpreted by the Secretary of Education. It also violates the spirit and intent of the EHA, which emphasizes parental involvement. After the fact involvement is not enough.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under subsection (b) [hearing process in local or state venue] who does not have the right to an appeal under subsection (c) of this section, [review of local decision by state superintending authority] and any party aggrieved by the findings and decision under subsection (c) of this section, shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section, which action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy. In any action brought under this paragraph the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“resolved to educate [the child] at [one school], and then developed an IEP to carry out their decision.”
2 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.