Small v. Rozum

How courts have described this case

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

• providing that parents’ affirmative insistence on an intervention, such as mainstreaming, may be a relevant consideration in meaningful access analysis
• “This Court lacks 10 subject matter jurisdiction over claims Student failed to raise in the relevant 11 administrative procedure.”
• parents notified district of intent to enroll in private school but student was still in public school at the time of the annual IEP meeting
• \Both state statutes and federal regulations supplement IDEA'S procedural and substantive requirements.\
• “Both state statutes and federal regulations supplement IDEA’s procedural and substantive requirements.”
• “Parental participation in the development of an IEP is the cornerstone of the IDEA.” (citing Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007)); but see J.P. ex rel. J.P v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Educ., 717 F. App’x 30, 32 (2d Cir. 2017

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).