E.M. Ex Rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Office of Administrative Hearings

How courts have described this case

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

• “We . . . review de novo the district court’s decision that the school district complied with the IDEA.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)
• We “review de novo the district court’s decision that the school district complied with the IDEA.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)
• “Our opinion [in E.M. I] did not alter the standard of review [for E.M. II].”
• this court “review[s] the district court’s factual determinations for clear error, even when based on the administrative record”
• “the district court . . . ruled that E.M.’s central auditory processing disorder could not be considered an ‘other health impairment’ under the applicable federal and state regulations.”
• “A district court’s compliance with our mandate is reviewed de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).