Joseph Spiegler v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the state has a duty “to give, at the time a final administrative decision is rendered, clear notice of the availability of judicial review and of the [limitations period]”
• holding that the quasi-appellate role of the district court in an action brought under the [IDEA] does not differ in important ways from an administrative appeal for purposes of borrowing an appropriate statute of limitations
• noting that even when a notice of denial of claimed IDEA benefits was held otherwise deficient, school authorities informed parents that the decision was \final.\
• noting that even when a notice of denial of claimed IDEA benefits was held otherwise deficient, school authorities informed parents that the decision was “final.”
• explaining that when Congress has not established a statute of limitations for a federal cause of action, courts should use the limitations period from an analogous state statute
• explaining that when Congress has not established a statute of limitations for a federal cause of action, courts should use the limitations period from an analogous state statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).