C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart B—State Eligibility

34 C.F.R. § 300.121

Procedural safeguards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. The State must have procedural safeguards in effect to ensure that each public agency in the State meets the requirements of §§ 300.500 through 300.536.

(b) Procedural safeguards identified. Children with disabilities and their parents must be afforded the procedural safeguards identified in paragraph (a) of this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(6)(A))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: White v. State of California, 195 Cal. App. 3d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White v. State of California, 195 Cal. App. 3d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× ““The State educational agency, as a recipient of [EHA] funds is responsible for insuring that all public agencies in the State comply with the provisions of the Act, regardless of whether they receive [EHA] funds.”
K.R., an Infant, by Her Parents & Next Friends M.R. & K.R.R., & M.R. & K.R.R. v. Anderson Cmty. Sch. Corp., 81 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1996). “Thus they require that all children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.121 & 300.126, but separately address the requirements for disabled children placed in, or voluntarily attending, private school.”
Alexander S. Ex Rel. Bowers v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773 (D.S.C. 1995). “§ 1412 (2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 . The state must have a policy in effect to identify, locate, and evaluate children who have a disability or who are suspected of having a disability.”
Cefalu ex rel. Cefalu v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 103 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1997). “They require that all disabled children receive a free appropriate public education, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.121 , 300.126; but they address separately the requirements for disabled children placed in, as opposed to attending voluntari *402 ly, private schools.”
Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 280 F. Supp. 2d 447 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (c). *455 9. An initial evaluation for educational service under Part B of the Act must determine whether the child is a child with a disability and if so, determine the educational needs of the child.”
Silano v. Tirozzi, 651 F. Supp. 1021 (D. Conn. 1987). “Section 1412 (2)(B); 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.121, 300.300, 104.”
Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 420 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2005). “34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (c)(1)(ii). Therefore, we think it is clear that an IFSP under Part C can serve as a child’s Preschool IEP under the Part B if the agency and the parents both agree.”
LIH Ex Rel. LH v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 103 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “I note that this failure may constitute a violation of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.121 (d) & 300.520(a)(2), which require the provision of services sufficient to effect a "free appropriate public education” when a child with disabilities is removed for more than ten days in the school year.”
Metro. Sch. Dist. of Wayne Twp. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1992). “2d 686 (1988), and other cases interpreting IDEA, the language of both the statute and an implementing regulation ( 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (a)), and the legislative history of the Act.”
Commonwealth of Virginia Dep't of Educ. v. Riley, 86 F.3d 1337 (4th Cir. 1996). “1996); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (a) (“Each State plan must include information that shows that the State has in effect a policy that ensures that all children with disabilities have the right to FAPE [free appropriate public education] within the age ranges and timelines…”
Souderton Area Sch. Dist. v. Elisabeth S. Ex Rel. Janet S., 820 A.2d 863 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). · cites it 8× “include one regular teacher on the IEP team was not a fatal flaw that prevented Lizzy from receiving FAPE; (3) that although the IEP process was not completed within thirty days, the District demonstrated good faith in attempting to complete the IEP process; and (4) inasmuch as…”
Dl v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2016). “§ 1400 (d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 ; [and] (2) Defendants’ actions violate 20 U.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.