A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that IEP provided appropriate strategies for student’s problem behaviors when it (1) addressed student’s attention problem by providing a personal aide to keep child focused and (2
• reversing district court and finding that any failure to conduct a FBA did not deny the student a FAPE
• noting that “if the SRO’s decision conflicts with the earlier decision of the IHO, the IHO’s decision may be afforded diminished weight,” because the court must “defer to the final decision of the state authorities” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “[i]f the SRO’s decision conflicts with the earlier decision of the IHO, the IHO’s decision may be afforded diminished weight,” because the court must “defer to the final decision of the state authorities” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “[i]f the SRO’s decision conflicts with the earlier decision of the IHO, the IHO’s decision may be afforded diminished weight,” because the court must “defer to the final decision of the state authorities” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “[i]f the SRO’s decision conflicts with the earlier decision of the IHO, the IHO’s decision may be afforded diminished weight,” because the court must “defer to the final decision of the state authorities” (citations and quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).