In re Delila D.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that section 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii) gives “the district court broad discretion to determine reimbursement. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding reimbursement despite the lack of notice.”
• discussing four-factor test for evaluating IEP from Michael F. , 118 F.3d at 253
• affirming the district court’s finding that the child “received minimal educational benefits” despite “a few isolated instances of arguable academic success”
• sustaining a challenge to the specific IEP that the school offered after it refused parents’ request for private placement
• “[I]f a child is able to receive an educational benefit without the residential placement . . . the school is not required to pay for it under IDEA.”
• first component of its test is whether private placement is “essential in order for the disabled child to receive a meaningful educational benefit” rather than to address “medical, social, or emotional problems”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).