MITCHELL, MICHAEL G. v. OLAR, CALIN

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that these hypothetical questions are fact-intensive and should not be \approach[ed] ... at a high[ ] level of generality\
• explaining that a plaintiff answered the Fry questions at too high a “level of generality” by framing the denial of a request to enroll in online learning in a different school district as a “broken promise of non-discriminatory access”
• answering “no” to both Fry questions and concluding IDEA exhaustion requirement applied to plaintiffs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).