-
School children and their families in this case argued that segregating schools was unjust and wrong. In 1954, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to segregate schools. This signaled the ending of legalized racial segregation in United States schools. It stated that this violated the 14th Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional. This decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" precedent that was set by the Supreme Court. (National Archives, 1954)
-
This law overturned a previous law that allowed public schools to deny a free education to children whose mental ages were lower than others. PARC challenged state laws that permitted schools to deny education to children who do not reach the mental age of five, by the time they begin first grade. (Ross, 2022, The Embryo Project Encyclopedia)
-
Students with disabilities are entitled to an education, and that education cannot be denied based on accommodations additional to the cost of school. The ruling was that the board would provide education for all participants in Mills's class. Mils held that no child could be denied a public education because of "mental, behavioral, physical, or emotional handicaps or deficiencies. During the trial, an exchange took place between the judge and representatives. (Minnesota Governors Council, 2023)
-
A deaf kindergarten student attends a school meeting with staff to discuss her FAPE plan. After further discussion, the school decided that she did not need their help with interpretation. The court held that public schools are not required by law to provide interpreters for sign language who are getting an equal education. Her parents filed a suit claiming they had violated the Education for handicapped children. (Editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2014)
-
The superintendent of Cumberland Schools informed parents the school committee would no longer fund the child's placement in a special education program. Parents filed an action against the committee. They had claims for declaratory and injunctive relief based on state law. The court held that the child was entitled to a free appropriate education paid for by the school. The court awarded attorney fees against the school committee. (Palomar, 1984)
-
A student with spina bifida, a split spine, was refused the right to be provided a catheter by the Texas School District. This case was settled when the court ruled that the school district was required to provide catheterization services for the student during school hours because it was considered a related service under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This was the court's first attempt to define the difference between "school health" and "medical services." (Umpstead, 2015)
-
A student was handicapped at a public school, he had poor performance and the school was unable to handle his needs. During his IEP meeting, the school decided that he be placed in a different school. His doctors recommended he be placed in a completely different school, so his parents paid double tuition for it as his previous school would not care for him. The court hearing determined that the school's placement was inappropriate. The BSEA ordered that the town pay for the student's tuition.
-
The school board refused to provide special education services to a child due to the complexity of their disabilities. They believed the student would not be capable of benefitting from these services. As a result, the student was not considered to be educationally handicapped. The court ruled that under Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Act, school boards were required to provide special education services to any disabled student. (Steketee, 2014)
-
A teenager with anger issues attacked a fellow classmate and broke a window. The student was suspended for 5 days, similar to another incident with a middle schooler with the same punishment. With the EAHCA act, students with disabilities are to be assessed and given an IEP, which allows them to maintain a similar academic experience as their peers. In the court ruling, the stay put clause decrees that the student should have remained in his assigned program during suspension. (Albatrosov, 2022)
-
Plaintiffs argued that their child did not receive fair treatment from the school regarding his IEP, claiming the teacher refused to refused to follow the IEP assigned to the student. The parents sued the teacher as well as the superintendent of the district, and the principal. It is a landmark case because it is the first special education case to be tried in front of a jury and the first to seek monetary damages. The ruling was that the board instructed the teacher to follow, but he disobeyed.
-
Zobrest was deaf since birth and had an interpreter at high school. His parents wanted him to transfer to a Roman Catholic high school and requested there be an interpreter there, but the school board denied the request. A lawsuit was filed by the Zobrest family, alleging the IDEA Act. The Free Exercise Clause required the school district to provide an interpreter for the student. The court ruled the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation. (
-
If a public school defaults and the child receives an appropriate education in a private placement, the parents are entitled to be reimbursed for the education that should have been provided. The school districts imposed IEP was inappropriate under IDEA. Rejecting a school district's claims that the selected private school was not approved by the state and reimbursement would be too burdensome. The court ruled parents are not barred from reimbursement due to the IDEA Act.
-
A student who is quadriplegic and requires a ventilator. During school, he needs a personal attendant for his health care needs. In 5th grade, his mother asked the school board for an assistant and they refused. The parent requested a hearing under the IDEA Act, a judge decided that the school board was responsible. A federal court in Iowa confirmed that it did not fall under a medical services act, so it moved to the 8 Circuit Court where the decision was upheld.
-
Parents of a student with disabilities prevailed in the appellate court in a suit demanding that the school district state pay the cost of a private school for their son for the years during which they litigated against the school. The parents then asked the district court to award them the fees they had paid to an educational consultant who assisted their suit. The school board argued that it should not have to pay the student's fees, but the court rejected it. (Mead, 2014)
-
A former school student sought to be evaluated for suspected learning disabilities. Office of Hearings determined the student was disabled and qualified for special education. The hearing officer ordered the school district to reimburse the student, but the school failed to offer him a free and appropriate public education. The school district appealed the order in an Oregon federal district arguing that the reimbursement was not appropriate because he withdrew from school.
-
Endrew F is an autistic fifth grader who was placed in private school because his parents believed public school was not adequate. He was placed in an autism home and his parents sued for reimbursement of his tuition and related expenses under the IDEA act. This case went to administrative law for review, The ALJ rejected the parents request concluding that the school provided him with free appropriate education. The district court held that the parents failed to meet their burden.