Karl Pihl v. Massachusetts Department of Education

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, as a general matter, an IEP is ripe for judicial review when the state education agency has issued a final decision reviewing that proposed education plan
• noting that compensatory education can take many forms, including tutoring and summer school
• noting that courts should eschew a construction of the act that would allow school districts to “rely[] on the Act’s time-consuming review process to protect them from further obligations”
• holding “compensatory education is available to remedy past deprivations”
• If the claimant could “prove that the school district denied him his right to an appropriate education under the IDEA ... he could claim relief in the form of compensatory education, notwithstanding the fact that he is now twenty-seven years old.”
• “[C]ompensatory education must be available beyond a student’s twenty-first birthday.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).