Storm Bros. v. First National Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the proffered supplemental evidence is cumulative because “[t]he information contained in proposed Exhibit . . . is largely summarized by th[e] testimony” elicited at the Due Process Hearing
• “Barring other reasons for exclusion, evidence acquired after an IEP—including information about a student’s progress in an alternative setting—may be admitted to the extent that it bears on the appropriateness of that IEP when initially drafted.”
• a court must determine whether the party introducing the additional evidence has presented a sufficient justification for not proffering the evidence at the administrative hearing
• “After evaluating Dr. Kay’s supplemental report, the court concludes that proposed Exhibit A is cumulative of the administrative record and merely embellishes Dr. Kay’s prior expert reports and testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).