Joan Grim and Steven Grim, Parents of a Disabled Child, Chelsea v. Rhinebeck Central School District

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that not every procedural error in development of IEP renders that plan legally inadequate
• holding that alleged procedural violation could not have prejudiced child’s education because program was substantively adequate and there was no evidence that procedural violation affected parents’ decision to enroll child in private school
• holding that the court may not “cho[ose] between the views of conflicting experts on a controversial issue of educational policy ... in direct contradiction of the opinions of state administrative officers who had heard the same evidence.”
• noting that not every procedural error “in the development of an IEP renders that IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA.”
• noting that courts should “tak[e] into account not only the record from the administrative proceedings, but also any further evidence presented before the District Court by the parties”
• stating that courts review state administrative decisions under the IDEA for (1) whether “the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act” and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).