Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Stanaford

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was “substantial support in the record” for conclusion that ICT class recommended in IEP was appropriate where IHO and SRO considered testimony of school district special education teacher and school psychologist that program was sufficient for student
• observing that a CSE is “not required to give [an] independent evaluation any particular weight or afford any deference to its recommendations”
• “[T]he validity of the proposed placement cannot be evaluated using speculative evidence concerning how the IEP might have been implemented.” (citation omitted)
• “Because the IHO and SRO have far more expertise that this Court, and reached the same conclusion about the appropriateness of the [subject class] recommendation, deference is due to the administrative officers.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).