Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court is “required to take additional evidence at the request of any party”
• concluding that conceded implementation failures did not violate the IDEA because “the significant provisions of [the child’s] IEP were followed, and, as a result, he received an educational benefit”
• noting that “declining percentile scores do not necessarily represent a lack of educational benefit, but only a child’s inability to maintain the same level of academic progress achieved by his non-disabled peers”
• noting that although there was no dispute of fact over the school district’s failures to provide certain services, the parties disagreed as to “the legal conclusions to be drawn from those failures”
• finding the student does not have to show progress in every area to obtain an educational benefit
• finding no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that a learning-disabled student received an educational benefit from his individualized education program based on grade improvements and standardized testing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).