District of Columbia v. Vinyard

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing District’s obligation to maintain special needs student at specific private school where hearing officer had directed District to place and fund student pending development of IEP
• noting that the plaintiffs “compliance with a stay-put order bears no preclusive effect as to its appeal of the [HOD’s] reimbursement award ... or of the [HOD’s] findings regarding [the child’s] entitlement to a new IEP.”
• finding a school’s “unilateral change to that [current educational] placement” entitles movants to “enforcement of their stay-put rights pursuant to § 1415(j
• “[a]s courts have consistently held, maintenance of a child’s current placement includes full payment for the program in which the student is placed ... ”
• “The Court finds compelling the District’s arguments that a stay of these holdings is necessary to preserve the District’s meaningful right to appeal the HOD.”
• “The Court finds compelling the District’s arguments that a stay of these holdings is necessary to preserve the District’s meaningful right to appeal the HOD.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).