Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Daniel S., a Minor by His Parents and Next Friends, Cynthia and Scott S. Cynthia S. Scott S., on Their Own Behalf v. Scranton School District

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided October 18, 2000No. 00-3050Published

1Concurring in the judgmentBecker, Chief Judge

Under the 1997 amendments to IDEA, on which the School District relies, “[a]t-torneys’ fees may not be awarded relating to any meeting of the IEP Team unless such meeting is convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(ii). Consequently, the School District can prevail only if: (1) the October 20 meeting was one of Daniel’s IEP Team; and (2) the meeting was not convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action. The Court agrees that the October 20 meeting was an IEP Team Meeting, but affirms the District Court’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. John D. Alvin v. Jon B. SuzukiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. F.R. v. Board of EducationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
  4. Lucht v. Molalla River School DistrictDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API