Kathleen H., Larry H. And Daniel H. 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.

• explaining that the fee-seeker must show that the school district would not have included the alleged benefit in the new IEP but for the litigation
• rejecting the plaintiffs’ characterization of their overall goal and relying in part on the absence of any evidence that the school district would have failed to provide the services ultimately awarded but for the administrative hearing
• involving judicial review of substantive claims raised in a due process hearing
• affirming the district court’s dismissal of an action as time- 9 barred after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their initial, timely action and affirming denial of 10 motion to vacate that voluntary dismissal
• “The standards governing the award of attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are applicable to awards under the IDEA.”
• “To qualify as a prevailing party, a litigant must demonstrate that: (1) He obtained relief on a significant claim in the litigation; (2) such relief effected a material alteration in his legal relationship with the defendant; and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).