Mary Courtney T. v. School District of Philadelphia

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 facility’s lack of educational accreditation and on-site educators “further demonstrated” that the child’s placement was not educational
• finding that the plaintiff’s expenses stemming from her care at a psychiatric treatment center were “far beyond the capacity and the responsibility of the School District”
• refusing to award compensatory education for a period in which a student suffered an acute medical condition
• indicating on appeal from a state administrative decision under IDEA the appellate court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error
• applying Kruelle only to determine whether contested services constitute “special education” under the Act
• requiring the district court to give “due weight” to the “[f]actual findings from the administrative proceedings” and consider them to be “prima facie correct and, if the court fails to adopt those findings, it must explain its reasons for departing from them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).