May v. Wolf Valley Coal Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs did not waive claims where the due process complaint “gave the Department adequate notice that the type of program recommended by the Department—including the methodology of that program—was at issue”
• courts generally should defer to well-reasoned decision of an SRO where the decisions of an IHO and an SRO conflict
• testimony at impartial hearing that student was in specific teacher’s class retrospective because “[t]here [was] no evidence ... that the [p]arents knew when they rejected the placement that [the student] would have been in [that] class”
• “When, as here, ‘the decisions of an [IHO] and [an SRO] conflict, the Court should generally defer to the [SRO’s] decision, as the ‘final decision of the state authorities.’ . . . This is particularly true ‘when the state officer’s review has been thorough and careful.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).