34 C.F.R. § 300.14

Equipment

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

Equipment means—

(a) Machinery, utilities, and built-in equipment, and any necessary enclosures or structures to house the machinery, utilities, or equipment; and

(b) All other items necessary for the functioning of a particular facility as a facility for the provision of educational services, including items such as instructional equipment and necessary furniture; printed, published and audio-visual instructional materials; telecommunications, sensory, and other technological aids and devices; and books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(7))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1982–2001 · leading case: Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).
Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984). · cites it 2× “See 34 CFR § 300.14 , Comment (1) (1983). Second, only those services necessary to aid a handicapped child to benefit from special education must be provided, regardless how easily a school nurse or layperson could furnish them.”
Stenger v. State, 104 Wash. App. 393 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See former 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (1994). 10 Further, federal regulations specifically provide that the public agency must assign an individual to act as a surrogate parent to a child who is a ward of the state; such a surrogate cannot be an employee of a public agency “involved in…”
Stenger v. State, 16 P.3d 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See former 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (1994). [10] Further, *663 federal regulations specifically provide that the public agency must assign an individual to act as a surrogate parent to a child who is a ward of the state; such a surrogate cannot be an employee of a public agency…”
Timothy W., Etc. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, Sch. Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (a)(1); 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)(16) (emphasis added).”
McNair v. Cardimone, 676 F. Supp. 1361 (S.D. Ohio 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1401 (16) and (18); 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 . Kelly’s parents then enrolled Kelly at St.”
Darlene L. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 568 F. Supp. 1340 (N.D. Ill. 1983). “34 C.F.R. Part 300.14(4). The regulation defining psychological services deals primarily with psychological evaluation.”
Holmes Ex Rel. Holmes v. Sobol, 690 F. Supp. 154 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (a)(1) (1987). The federal regulations further provide that special education “.”
Com. of Mass. v. Heckler, 616 F. Supp. 687 (D. Mass. 1985). “34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (a)(2) The Action Transmittal acknowledges that in providing services to individuals at ICF/MRs, “it is difficult to clearly differentiate between a habilitative .”
Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994). “13 ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 . As explained above, the Supreme Court recently held that the appropriateness of a placement does not depend on whether the institution satisfies the state education standards.”
State Ex Rel. Lambert v. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ., 447 S.E.2d 901 (W. Va. 1994). · cites it 2× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 . [6] Children with disabilities includes a child with deafness or a hearing impairment.”
AA on Behalf of AA v. Cooperman, 526 A.2d 1103 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987). “[ [2] ] In the absence of a handicap that requires special education, the need for what otherwise might qualify as a related service does not create an obligation under the Act.”
Stacey G., Etc. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 547 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1982). “§ 1401 (17) (1978); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.14 (1981). These services include transportation and developmental, corrective, and supportive services such as speech pathology, audiology, recreation, psychological services, certain medical services, physical and occupational…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.14(4) — 1 case
Darlene L. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 568 F. Supp. 1340 (N.D. Ill. 1983). “34 C.F.R. Part 300.14(4). The regulation defining psychological services deals primarily with psychological evaluation.”
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.