Third Circuit· 5/17/2012

Ridley School District v. M.R.

Citations

680 F.3d 260
78 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 629
2012 WL 1739709
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9908

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).

Judges: Rendell, Fisher, Chagares

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.