Wilson's Admr. v. De Loach

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the exhaustion requirement was excused where the plaintiffs alleged that “the City refuses to include certain services on any IEP regardless of the student’s needs, and parents can only obtain such services through due process hearings”
• noting that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is excused where the plaintiff demonstrates that exhaustion would be futile under the circumstances
• “Although IHOs and SROs have the authority to order wide-ranging relief for individual children in a specific school year, they have no power to alter the City’s policies or general practices and cannot issue prospective relief.”
• “Because the [named defendant] has no control over state policies and practices, it can offer no relief in response to these particular claims. Thus, [the nonparty] is a necessary party under Rule 19 . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).