Ridley School District v. M.R.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no child-find violation occurred where the school district “appeared to be invested in addressing [the child’s] needs and provid[ed] appropriate instruction and interventions before rushing to special education identification”
• stating that “the substantive standards for determining liability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are the same”
• stating that “[t]he core of the IDEA is the collaborative process that it establishes between parents and schools”
• stating that an “appropriate” education under Section 504 is one that meets this standard (citations omitted)
• finding that the child did not have a disability where “although areas of weakness were found, [the child’s] academic skills were generally considered to be in the average range”
• finding that the child did not have a disability where “although areas of weakness were found, [the child’s] academic skills were generally considered to be in the average range”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).