Wg v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School District No Missoula Montana’s Empirical Analysis
960 F.2d 1479 · 1992
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Union School District v. Smith (1994), Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg ex rel. Wartenberg (1995)
62 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 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
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 · Roland M. v. Concord School Committee · 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not every procedural violation, however, is sufficient to support a finding that the child in question was denied a FAPE. Technical deviations, for example, will not render an IEP invalid. On the other hand, procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, or that caused a deprivation of educational benefits, clearly result in the denial of a FAPE.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District · Evanston Community Consolidated School District Number 65 v. Michael M. And Christine M., Parents of John M., John M., by His Parents and Next Friends, Michael M. And Christine M. v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District Number 65 and Dr. Hardy Ray Murphy, Its Superintendent, Sued in His Official Capacity“[p]rocedural flaws do not automatically require a finding of a denial of a FAPE. However, procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe on the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, clearly result in the denial of a FAPE.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evanston Community Consolidated School District Number 65 v. Michael M. And Christine M., Parents of John M., John M., by His Parents and Next Friends, Michael M. And Christine M. v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District Number 65 and Dr. Hardy Ray Murphy, Its Superintendent, Sued in His Official Capacity · Glendale Unified School District v. Almasi“the procedural requirements of the Act by failing to develop an IEP in the manner specified, the purposes of the Act are not served, and the district may have failed to provide a FAPE.”
7 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.