Influential Landmark Cases

By TLGray
  • EHA

    This legislative act is about offering guaranteed education for special needs children. I believe this act supports students with disabilities because through this act it is giving the chance for those students to receive an education just like every other child.
    Coates, K. M. (1985). The education for all handicapped children act since 1975. Marq. L. Rev., 69, 51.
  • IDEA Act

    This act was signed into law protecting and providing education to children with special needs. I believe this act tries to bring the NCLB and IDEA in alignment to make sure that the special needs students are receiving an appropriate education.
    Gartin, B. C., & Murdick, N. L. (2005). Idea 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 327–331.
  • Burlington School Committee v. Mass BD of ED, 471 U.S

    This landmark case was one about parents' rights to participate in the IEP development for their child. The Burlington School Committee's stance on the case was against the actions taken by the Mass Dept. of Ed while the Mass Dept. of Ed felt that they were in the right of refusing to reimburse the parents who moved their children to private school due to the IEP.
  • Burlington School Comm v Mass Dept. of Ed

    According to this case, the act of Education For All Handicapped was put into play. This act was the approval for parental reimbursement. A parent that placed their child in private school if they disagreed with the IEP. I believe this act was supported in the case because the parents wanted to be a part of the IEP and they had the right to disagree to make sure their child was going to receive the education they were due.
  • Burlington School Committee v Mass. Dept. of Ed

    Rehberg, M. L. (2022, April 22). School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education. Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)

    The plaintiffs, in this case, felt that the students already placed in their educational placements should stay regardless of students' actions. While the defendant's stance was the student should be removed based on the student's actions.
  • Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)

    The court ruled that the schools must keep their students in their placements and provide services for those students. In this case, I feel that the legal rulings were on point because of the EHA Act. In this act, clearly states that the special needs student must receive an appropriate and free education.
    Steketee, A. M. (2022, January 13). Honig v. Doe. Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)

    The stance of Schaffer was that they had the right to challenge a school's IEP. Whereas the Defendants felt that they were within their rights based on the IEPs. The court ruling was split because of the wording of the IDEA Act. Although this case fell under the IDEA parents couldn't prove their position based on the wording of the Act.
  • Schaffer v. Weast 2005

    Conroy, T., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2008). Schaffer v. Weast: The Supreme Court on the Burden of Persuasion When Challenging IEPs. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 108–117.