T.Y. Ex Rel. T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the USDOE’s commentary “indicate[s] that the term, ‘location’ does not mean the specific school location, but the general environment of the overall program”
• Observing, the requirements of Rule 56.1 are “strict” and that, under the rule, “[s]hould the nonmoving party wish to contest the assertions contained within a Rule 56.1 statement, the nonmoving party must respond to reach of the statement’s paragraphs”
• “The parents’ actions suggest they seek a ‘veto’ over school choice, rather than ‘input’ — a power the IDEA clearly does not grant them.”
• “[S]chool districts [do not] have carte blanche to assign a child to a school that cannot satisfy the IEP’s requirements.”
• “We emphasize that we are not holding that school districts have carte blanche to assign a child to a school that cannot satisfy the IEP’s requirements.”
• “The parents’ actions suggest that they seek a ‘veto’ over school choice, rather than ‘input’—a power the IDEA clearly does not grant them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).