86 F. Supp. 2d 538 - Brian S. v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415
Relies on Honig v. Doe · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. · Irving Independent School District v. Tatro · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Andersen v. Exxon Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is ... no one principle, or set of harmonious principles, which afford a sure and universal test for the solution of a given class of cases. The logic of the situation does not demand such a test; it would be useless to attempt to discover or to invent one; and the state of the law does not justify us in saying that it has accepted any. There are merely specific rules for specific classes of cases, resting for their ultimate basis upon broad reasons of experience and fairness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weast v. Schaffer“should not have to demonstrate to an impartial fact-finder, at least in the first instance, that the proposed goals and objectives of the IEP address the student’s needs, or that the IEP delivers services to those needs in a way that will provide progress towards those goals and objectives, or that the proposed criteria to evaluate the child’s progress are in place and can actually measure the extent to which objectives are obtained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are experts on both sides in this case who have testified with opposing points of view. The credentials of all of those experts, in their respective fields, were impressive. Because each side’s experts have diverging views on the question of what the Child’s needs were and which placement would afford the requisite educational benefit for the Child, an assignment of the burden of proof in this case becomes critical.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weast v. Schaffer
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.