green
Positive treatment
21.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District
(2×)
Cf. Richardson, 347 F.3d at 434 (noting that the PLRA "lacks the sweeping and direct language that would indicate a jurisdictional bar rather than a mere codification of administrative exhaustion requirements") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); but see Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that section 1415( l ) of the IDEA is jurisdictional).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L.B. v. New York City Department of Education
Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Killoran v. Westhampton Beach School District
Cir. 2002) (holding failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spring v. Allegany-Limestone Central School District
Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Neske v. New York City Department of Education
Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)); B.C. ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Boston Public Schools
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of D.B. ex rel. Briggs v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist.
Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 and Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 [2d Cir.1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education
IDEA); Hornstine v. Twp. of Moorestown, 263 F.Supp.2d 887, 901-02 (D.N.J.2003) (“[I]n cases in which it appears that a plaintiff has cloaked an IDEA claim as an ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or Section 1983 action in an effort to avoid application of the IDEA’S distinct exhaustion requirement, courts will require that plaintiff to exhaust the state administrative remedies mandated for IDEA claims”); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995) (finding claims asserted under the ADA subject to the IDEA’S exhaustion requirement, if such claims seek relief available under the IDEA).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donus ex rel. Donus v. Garden City Union Free School District
See Cave, 514 F.3d at 245 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(2)(A)); Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (“Although the IDEA provides for a federal cause of action ..., it imposes a broadly applicable requirement that plaintiffs first exhaust administrative remedies.”); Buffolino v. Bd. of Educ., 729 F.Supp. 240, 244 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (“If a party has exhausted both .... administrative remedies, namely the impartial hearing and the administrative appeal, and the party remains aggrieved, a civil lawsuit may be commenced in either state court or federal district court....”). “[F]ailure to exhaust administ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
N.K. ex rel. J.K. v. New York City Deptartment of Education
Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir.2002); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995); see also B.M., 2013 WL 1972144 , at *6 (holding that the Second Circuit’s precedent treating failure to exhaust under the IDEA as jurisdictional remains good law).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A.M. ex rel. Y.N. v. New York City Department of Education
Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir.2002); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
P. v. Greenwich Board of Education
Dist., 288 F.3d 478 , 483 (2d Cir.2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).” “Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16 , 126 S.Ct. 403 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 [ ] (2005) and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 , 124 S.Ct. 906 , 157 L.Ed.2d 867 [ ] (2004), have called into question whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives the court of jurisdiction, or whether [it] is an affirmative defense which may be waived if not raised ...” B.J.S. v. State Educ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Intravaia ex rel. Intravaia v. Rocky Point Union Free School District
“A plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative, remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)); see also Cave, 514 F.3d at 245 ; Coleman, 503 F.3d at 204-05 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T.W. ex rel. H.W. v. Spencerport Central School District
Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245-246 (2d Cir.2008) (feder al claims under other statutes seeking relief available under the IDEA are subject to the IDEA’S exhaustion requirements); Polera, 288 F.3d 478 at 483 (same); Fennell v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995) (same); MC v. Arlington Central Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Philip Baldessarre v. Monroe-Woodbury Central School District, et
Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 and Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 3 There is no dispute that the plaintiffs did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to them and required by the IDEA.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dean v. SCH. DIST. OF CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, NY
“Failure to exhaust the administrative remedies deprives the • court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Polera, 288 F.3d at 483) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School District
Cir.2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School District
Cir. 2002) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School District
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Only after the parents have exhausted these procedures may they seek judicial review. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(2)(a); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Starkey Ex Rel. Starkey v. Somers Central School Dist.
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perreault-Osborne v. New Milford Board of Education
Polera, 288 F.3d at 483 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (l)); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B.H. v. Southington Board of Education
Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195, 199 (2d Cir.2002) (a plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies, when required, deprives the court of jurisdiction), citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995); see also Taylor, 313 F.3d at 789.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weber v. Cranston Public School Committee
See Charlie F., 98 F.3d 989, 991 . (because failure to exhaust can usually be waived by defendants, it is not a jurisdictional issue); but see Babicz, 135 F.3d at 1421 (failure to exhaust deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction); W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 493 (3d Cir.1995)(same); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.l995)(affirming district court dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pam Taylor v. Vermont Department Of Education
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995). 89 Plaintiff is nonetheless entitled to proceed with her claim under one, if not more, of the recognized exceptions to this requirement.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Vermont Department of Education
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McAdams v. Board of Education of the Rocky Point Union Free School District
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Indeed, “[a] plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearl Murphy and Theodore Murphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of Education
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
RM Ex Rel. JM v. Vernon Bd. of Educ.
See id. at 483 ; Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sabur Ex Rel. Kessler v. Brosnan
Indeed, “[a] plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995)). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Polera v. Board Of Ed. Of N'burgh City Sch. District
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Considering the case on appeal, we noted that the District Court had "determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA," and we affirmed "on the opinion of the District Court." Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Polera v. Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Considering the case on appeal, we noted that the District Court had “determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA,” and we affirmed “on the opinion of the District Court.” Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
The Second Circuit’s decision in Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995), does not require a different result.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School District
Blackmon v. Springfield R-XII School Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 655 (8th Cir.1999); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeremy H. v. Mount Lebanon School District
No. 99-296, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (1985)); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that exhaustion is required as to ADA claims). 48 After finding that the statute of limitations barred all of the Hunters' IDEA claims based on events occurring before November 17, 1992, the district court went on to conclude that all of their claims based upon events occurring after that date were barred for failure to comply with IDEA's exhaustion requirement, as the only administrative proceeding that the Hunters had initiated began much earlier, in October 1991.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeremy H. Ex Rel. Hunter v. Mount Lebanon School District
No. 99-296, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (1985)); Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that exhaustion is required as to ADA claims).
discussed
Cited "see"
A.W.S. v. Southampton Union Free School District
See Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of both disability and race discrimination claims of dyslexic student under Title VI for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA).
cited
Cited "see"
C.K. ex rel. A.K. v. Board of Education of the Westhampton Beach School District
See id. at 16 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Arum v. Miller
See Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 19 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1995) (“The failure to exhaust such administrative procedures [under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) ] deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Jacky W. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 848 F.Supp. 358, 360 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (“Jurisdiction to review claims for violation of IDEA is vested in district courts only upon the exhaustion of available state administrative review.”) (citing Heldman v. Sobol, 962 F.2d 148, 158 (2d Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allied Systems, Inc.
“A party who fails to exhaust administrative remedies is precluded from raising those issues in the district court.” Prado, 982 F.Supp. at 1308 (citing Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 , 113 S.Ct. 1213, 1220-21 , 122 L.Ed.2d 604 (1993)); see Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14 , aff'd, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wall v. Mattituck-Cutchogue School District
The IEP is a written statement that sets forth, inter alia, the child’s present performance level, goals, specific services that will enable the child to meet those goals, and evaluation criteria and procedures. 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)(20); see Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 16 (E.D.N.Y.) (Block, J.), aff’d, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1995). 3 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Neuman v. Georgetown Independent School District
See, e.g., Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Baldessarre v. Monroe-Woodbury Central School District
See Cave, 514 F.3d at 243 , 245 & n. 2 (noting that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 claims due to plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Polera, 288 F.3d at 480, 490-91 (holding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims as plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies); see also Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 15-16 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims under ADA, § 1983, and Civil Rights Act of 1964 that plaintif…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Piazza v. Florida Union Free School District
See Cave, 514 F.3d at 243 , 245 & n. 2 (noting that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 3983 claims due to plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Murphy, 297 F.3d at 199 (“The plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies ordinarily deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction over any IDEA claims.”); Polera v. Bd. of Educ., 288 F.3d 478 , 480, 483 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims as plaintiff did not exhaust administrative…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Andree Ex Rel. Andree v. County of Nassau
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (l); Heldman v. Sobol, 962 F.2d 148 , 158 (2d Cir.1992); see also BD v. DeBuono, 130 F.Supp.2d 401, 426 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (citing Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
B.K. v. Norwalk Board of Education, No. Cv98 033 25 03 S (Feb. 16, 2001)
Calhoun v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 550 F. Sup. 796 , 803 (N.D.Ill. 1982); see also Hopes v. Cortines, 872 F. Sup. 14 , 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995) (actions brought under Rehabilitation Act generally do not require administrative procedure exhaustion, except when seeking relief available under IDEA); Tyson v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 22 F. Sup.2d 535 , 538 (S.D.W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoekstra Ex Rel. Hoekstra v. Independent School District No. 283
Generally, the ADA does not *948 require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim under Title II of the Act. 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 ; see also Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 20 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lloyd Hope and Constance Fennell, Individually and as Parents and Lawful Guardians of Moyo Hope, a Minor and Moyo Hope
v.
Ramon Cortines, Individually and as Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York and the Board of Education of the City of New York
v.
Ramon Cortines, Individually and as Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York and the Board of Education of the City of New York
274.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 8, 1995.
Cited by 30 opinions | Published
104 Ed. Law Rep. 595, 4 A.D. Cases 1856,
7 NDLR P 296
Lloyd HOPE and Constance Fennell, individually and as
parents and lawful guardians of Moyo Hope, a
minor; and Moyo Hope, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Ramon CORTINES, individually and as Chancellor of the Board
of Education of the City of New York; and the
Board of Education of the City of New
York, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 274, Docket 95-7151.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 13, 1995.
Decided Nov. 8, 1995.
Loren Baily, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Jane L. Gordon, New York City (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Barry P. Schwartz, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
1
Plaintiffs-appellants Moyo Hope, a sixteen year-old minor, and his parents appeal from the January 9, 1995, judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, Judge) dismissing their lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993), against the Board of Education of the City of New York and its Chancellor. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability and race by refusing to provide appropriate educational services to Moyo, a child who is both gifted and afflicted with dyslexia. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' ADA claim, as well as other claims not pursued on appeal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993). Plaintiffs ask this Court to vacate the dismissal of the ADA claim and return the case to the District Court.
2
In a thorough, thoughtful opinion, the District Court explained why claims asserted under the ADA are subject to the IDEA's requirement, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(f), that litigants exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures before bringing suit under the ADA to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA. Hope v. Cortines, 872 F.Supp. 14, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y.1995). The District Court also determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA, and that plaintiffs' claims do not fall within any of the exceptions to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Id. at 21-23. We affirm on the opinion of the District Court.