Cordrey v. Rj Euckert’s Empirical Analysis
917 F.2d 1460 · 1990
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School District (1992), United States v. Vontsteen (1992)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1414 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · Irving Independent School District v. Tatro · Gregory K. v. Longview 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he best rule is that which recognizes that the school district has no purely custodial duty to provide for handicapped children while similar provision is not made for others. We therefore begin with the proposition that providing an ESY is the exception and not the rule ... [A] child’s educational progress ‘can be understood as a continuum where the point of regression versus progress is less relevant than the conferral of benefit.’ ... Whatever the child’s handicap and potential, however, the inquiry is essentially the same. If the child benefits meaningfully within his potential from instruction under a proper IEP over a regular school year, then ESY service may not be required ... unless ‘the benefits accrued to the child during the regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided an [ESY].’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the child benefits meaningfully within his potential from instruction under a proper IEP over a regular school year, then ESY service may not be required under the Act unless the benefits accrued to the child during the regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided an ESY.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Conclusions of law are ... subject to de novo review”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.