Mackey V. Board Of Education For The Arlington Central School District Mackey V. Board Of Education For The Arlington Central School District

Mackey V. Board Of Education For The Arlington Central School District

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

This case presents the question of whether the parents of a learning disabled child are entitled to equitable relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1490, reimbursing them for private school tuition, when the denial of reimbursement results solely from the untimely issuance of a state administrative decision. The suit arises from the complaint of plaintiffs-appellants, Thomas and Barbara Mackey (the "parents"), against defendants-appellees, the Board of Education for the Arlington Central School District (the "District") and the State Education Department (the "State"), alleging that the District is obligated to reimburse them for the cost of placing their son in private school for the 2000-2001 academic year and that they are entitled to declaratory relief relating to the State violation of various procedural safeguards mandated under the IDEA. The parents' tuition reimbursement claim is premised on two separate theories: (1) that the individualized education plan ("IEP") fashioned by the District for the 2000-2001 school year was inadequate (the "IEP inadequacy claim"); and (2) that the private school was the child's pendency placement for the 2000-2001 school year (the "pendency claim"). The district court granted the District's motion for summary judgment and the State's motion to dismiss, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. In a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the parents' IEP inadequacy claim and of their request for declaratory relief against the State. We write here to address the parents' pendency claim. We conclude that the district court erred in holding that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement on a pendency basis. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
2004
7 de octubre
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
17
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
81
KB

Más libros de 2004 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term

Nichols v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America Nichols v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
2005
United States v. Spallone United States v. Spallone
2005
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp. Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp.
2005
Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals
2005
United States v. Lewis United States v. Lewis
2005
United States v. Gandia United States v. Gandia
2005