Cruz v. City of Anaheim

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “residency, rather than enrollment, trigger’s a district’s FAPE obligations”
• explaining the school district “improperly attempt[ed] to impose a FAPE requirement by arguing that [the private school] was not the least restrictive environment” for the student
• “[the IDEA] requires each LEA to have in effect an IEP at the beginning of each school year for each disabled child ‘in the agency's jurisdiction.’”
• “[Wjhere parents request reevaluations of their child for purposes of having an offer of a FAPE made for him, and the child is domiciled in the district, the school district must comply.” (emphasis added)
• “[Wjhere parents either re-enroll their child in public school or request evaluations so they can re-enroll him, the district must evaluate and develop an IEP for that child for purposes of proposing a FAPE.”
• “[W]here the child was already attending a private school when the district denied him a FAPE ... courts have calculated tuition claims from the point at which the school district should have acted.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).