Hunkele v. Kerestes

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a newly raised argument was forfeited where “parents did not raise th[e] issue in either their . . . due process complaint notice or their . . . amended notice.”
• explaining that failing to raise an argument in a due process complaint amounts to a forfeiture (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B))
• construing the IDEA’s pendency provision to apply through the resolution of “administrative and judicial proceedings” (emphasis added)
• \The IDEA requires states receiving federal special education funding to provide disabled children with a FAPE.\
• the stay-put provision of the IDEA “requires a school .district to continue funding whatever educational placement was last agreed upon for the child until the relevant administrative and judicial proceedings are complete.”
• DOE must offer placement in the “least restrictive” appropriate environment.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).