Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the challenged IEP was adequate, the defendant school board could not “be ordered to reimburse the parents for expenses incurred as a result of their decision to remove their child from the ... program”
• noting that the holding in Carter applies only “where both prongs of [the] Burlington test are [otherwise] satisfied”
• holding that because the challenged IEP was adequate, defendant school board could not be or dered to reimburse parents for expenses incurred as a result of their decision to remove their child from the district’s program
• stating that federal courts are required to give “due weight” to state administrative proceedings under the IDEA
• noting that the administrative officer could postpone a due process hearing to allow the school district time to correct a technical defect in the challenged IEP
• holding that parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement when “it appears (1) that the proposed IEP was inadequate to afford the child an appropriate public education, and (2) that the private education services obtained by the parents were appropriate to the child’s needs”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).