M.S. Ex Rel. Simchick v. Fairfax County School Board

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 broad discretion afforded under the IDEA allowed a 38 district court to consider reimbursement for three years of a child’s allegedly inappropriate placement
• stating that “progress, or lack thereof” is “important, [but] not dispositive” as to whether an IEP was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit
• discussing compensatory education as a possible remedy for failure to provide a FAPE
• “[T]he district court’s consideration of [the private placement’s] restrictive nature was proper because it considered the restrictive nature only as a factor in determining whether the placement was appropriate under the IDEA, not as a dispositive requirement.”
• “[P]rogress, or the lack thereof, while important, is not dispositive.”
• explaining the conditions under which reimbursement is available

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).