Lillbask v. State of Connecticut 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• holding claim mooted by repeal of offending portion of statute because no indication of plan to reinstate repealed portion
• observing the Second Circuit requires a probability, rather than a possibility, that repetition will occur
• citing, among other cases, Rome Sch. Comm. v. Mrs. B., 247 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2001
• “We have interpreted the word ‘inclusive,’ in this provision, to indicate that a child remains eligible for a free appropriate education under IDEA until his 22nd birthday.”
• “We have interpreted the word ‘inclusive,’ in this provision, to indicate that a child remains eligible for a free appropriate education under IDEA until his 22nd birthday.”
• “[T]he due weight we ordinarily must give to the state administrative proceedings is not implicated with respect to issues of law, such as the proper interpretation of the federal statute and its requirements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).