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 A—General

34 C.F.R. § 300.4

Act

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

Act means the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1400(a))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1982–1996 · leading case: Lyons Ex Rel. Alexander v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyons Ex Rel. Alexander v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C. 1993). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 . 5 Because the DCPS system receives these funds, it must develop for each eligible, handicapped child, an IEP describing the specific educational services which DCPS will provide to meet his unique needs.”
M.H. Ex Rel. M.H. v. Montana High Sch. Ass'n, 929 P.2d 239 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 1401 (18); 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 . When participation in interscholastic sports is included as a component of an IEP as a "related service," see 20 U.”
Timothy W., Etc. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, Sch. Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 ; 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)(18).”
McNair v. Cardimone, 676 F. Supp. 1361 (S.D. Ohio 1987). “§ 1401 (18); 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 ), to Kelly McNair. They bring this action with respect to their complaint presented to that agency.”
Mitchell Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Walter, 538 F. Supp. 1111 (S.D. Ohio 1982). “See also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.4 and 300.340 et seq. (1981).”
Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified Sch. Dist., 797 F. Supp. 753 (D. Ariz. 1992). “34 C.F.R. § 300.4 . A state satisfies the requirement to provide a FAPE by providing instruction and services, at public expense, that meet the State’s educational standards and comport with the child’s IEP.”
Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994). “The District argues that, because Bernard resided in Los Angeles during the school week while attending the Clinic, the District was not responsible for reimbursing the Smiths for the costs of Bernard’s education at the Clinic.”
LENHOFF BY LENHOFF v. Farmington Pub. Schs., 680 F. Supp. 921 (E.D. Mich. 1988). “§ 1401 (18); 34 C.F.R. 300.4; and M.C.L.A. § 380.1701(a); 380.”
Victoria L. v. Dist. Sch. Bd., 741 F.2d 369 (11th Cir. 1984). “§§ 1401 (18), 1412(5)(B), 1414(a)(l)(C)(iv); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.4 , 300.500, appellant introduced no evidence that the proposed placement was in any way inappropriate or that a less restrictive environment existed in which she could receive the special education she needed while…”
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.