Durr-Irving v. Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting 21 that the state educational agency “is a proper defendant in this action, which challenges a [state] 22 policy that allegedly interferes with the IEP development process for disabled students in a systemic 23 manner”
• “Here, the parties do not appear to dispute that the exhaustion issue is properly raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) — as opposed to Rule 12(b)(1) — motion.” (citing Coleman, 503 F.3d at 203-04)
• “Here, the parties do not appear to dispute that the exhaustion issue is properly raised in a Rule 12(b)(6)' — as opposed to Rule 12(b)(1) — motion.” (citing Coleman, 503 F.3d at 203-04)
• “Parents are specifically entitled to request a due process hearing in order to present complaints as to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).