Susan N. David N., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians to M.N. A Minor v. Wilson School District

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing that it would be “unfair to adopt a rule under which a [school] district would be . . . penalized for an IEP that, while apparently appropriate at the time it was developed, turned out in hindsight to be inadequate” (alteration marks changed)
• recognizing the expertise of the administrative agency and that courts must consider the findings 7 carefully and endeavor to respond to the hearing officer’s resolution of each material issue; then the court is free to accept or reject the findings in part or in whole
• a court has the authority to exclude certain evidence that could have been available at the administrative hearing
• “[T]he question of what additional evidence to admit in an IDEA judicial review proceeding . . . should be left to the discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted)
• “While a district court appropriately may exclude [post hoc] evidence, a court must exercise particularized discretion in its rulings so that it will consider evidence relevant, non-cumulative and useful in determining whether Congress’ goal has been reached for the child involved.”
• overruling risk on other grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).