Todd Robert v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 1576 · 1991
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Gadsby v. Grasmick (1997), Jsk Jk Pgk Jk Pgk v. Hendry County School Board (1991)
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1413 · 20 U.S.C. § 1414
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Honig v. Doe · Lumpkin v. Lumpkin · McDaniel v. Georgia Ass'n of Retarded Citizens
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. The coordinated set of activities shall be based upon the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s preferences and interests, and shall include instruction, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] court’s inquiry in suits brought under § 1415(e)(2) is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under this provision, once [a local educational agency] is either unable or unwilling to establish and maintain programs in compliance with IDEA, the [state educational agency] is responsible for directly providing the services to disabled children in the area.”
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.