Ringel v. Ringel

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 Act establishes a substantive right to a FAPE for qualifying children
• indicating that Murch provided “a counterproductive set of circumstances for a child who has a hopeful prognosis if the right intervention is available”
• noting that “deficiencies in the IEP were capable of repetition as to the parties before it yet evading review”
• stating that IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits”
• stating that “due weight” means to “consider—although not necessarily to accept—the administrative fact findings”
• stating that “due weight” means to “consider—although not necessarily to accept—the administrative fact findings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).