Murphy v. Timberlane Regional School District’s Empirical Analysis
973 F.2d 13 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Pihl v. Massachusetts Department of Education (1993), Murphy v. Timberlane Regional School District (1994)
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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
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 · United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp. · Lumpkin v. Lumpkin
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In September 1981, Kevin was transferred from his previous placement to a special program at Charlotte Avenue School, a ■public elementary school in Nashua, New Hampshire. Although Kevin’s parents had originally agreed to this new placement, ■they soon became concerned about the appropriateness of the placement, and expressed their objections to Kevin’s teacher and to Timberlane’s special education administrators. In December 1981, Kevin suffered a seizure at home, and his parents decided not to return Kevin to school after the winter break. In January 1982, the school superintendent authorized the director of special education to provide tutorial services to Kevin in his home. A year later, the State Department of Education strongly recommended that the district provide Kevin with home-based instruction. No such services were ever provided. . Mr. Murphy wrote letters to Timberlane in January and February 1982, notifying the school district of his decision to keep Kevin at home, complaining that Kevin was being denied an education, and threatening to bring an action against the district. Kevin remained at home throughout 1982 and 1983.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e are troubled by Timberlane’s attempt to fault the Murphys for their failure to file for a due process hearing when, although the parents are entitled to request a hearing if they disagree with an IEP, state regulations impose upon Timberlane not only the right, but the obligation to do the same.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to assure that children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education.”
2 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.