In Re: T.W., Z.L.-1, and Z.L.-2

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “courts frequently found the LSI Laffey matrix more persuasive” when it was “pitted against” the USAO version
• determining that plaintiffs provided “more than enough to pass the burden onto the District” by supplying “the same types of evidence” as in Salazar
• observing that “as time passes, the Laffey matrix may well—like shoulder pads, eight-tracks, and other ’80s fads before it—be losing its shine”
• accepting that the case qualified as “complex federal litigation” when the District did not challenge that district court finding
• noting that IDEA cases may “fall within a submarket characterized by below-Laffey rates.”
• rejecting the suggestion that all Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) cases qualify as non-complex litigation merely because some IDEA cases do

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).