Board of Education of Downers Grove Grade School District No. 58 v. Steven L. And Christine L., Individually and as Parents of Andrew L., a Minor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the definition of prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as discussed in Farrar, is the same as that used in the IDEA
• determining that the dispute, which concerned the student’s fifth-grade IEP, was moot, where the student was about to enter eighth grade at a different school and an IEP had already been agreed upon at the new school
• holding in another IDEA case, that having “already agreed to a new IEP with a different school district,” the parents “are without an actual injury traceable to the defendant that could be redressed by a favorable judicial decision”
• to determine prevailing-party status \ '[b]ut for' is not an adequate conception of cause\
• “The law does not view [student’s] parents as a prevailing party under § 1415(e)(4)(B) because their only ultimate victory under the IDEA is the invocation of the stay-put provision.”
• “Because this case is moot, we cannot consider the merits of the district court’s memorandum opinion and order. To do so would be to issue an advisory opinion solely to determine who prevailed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).