Maroni Ex Rel. Michael M. v. Pemi-Baker Regional School District

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the statute “mandates revision of the IEP to address information 18 provided either by or to parents regarding the child’s educational needs and services”
• indicating that school district would have right to remove IDEA action to federal court
• interpreting the IDEA as including parents as “parties aggrieved” who have a right to bring, pro se, a civil action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A)
• remanding the case and directing the district court to afford the child's parents an opportunity to amend the complaint to name themselves as plaintiffs
• describing parents who brought suit on behalf of their minor son as “next friends”
• adopting Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 383 (4th Cir. 2000) (establishing judicial review under the IDEA is available when parents are “dissatisfied” with the administrative official’s decision regarding their FAPE claims)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).