Majority v. Mansky

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, on its own, the lack of evidence that CSE reviewed child’s evaluative 18 material, though a procedural violation, did not deny child a FAPE
• cautioning that “[d]enying summary orders precedential effect does not mean that the [C]ourt considers itself free to rule differently in similar cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Denying summary orders precedential effect does not mean that the court considers itself free to rule differently in similar cases.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)
• “To comply with the provisions of the IDEA, the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “To comply with the provisions of the IDEA, the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “we must review the adequacy of the IEP at the time it was offered, based on the information the CSE had at that time”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).