34 C.F.R. § 300.505
Electronic mail
A parent of a child with a disability may elect to receive notices required by §§ 300.503, 300.504, and 300.508 by an electronic mail communication, if the public agency makes that option available.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: Genn ex rel. Genn v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., 219 F. Supp. 3d 296 (D. Conn. 2016).
Genn ex rel. Genn v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., 219 F. Supp. 3d 296 (D. Conn. 2016). “In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that this aspect of the decision was improper because it was a direct violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.505 (b), which provides for how a Board may pursue evaluations if the parent does not consent.”
Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs. v. Christopher Smith, by His Parents, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “to take the action, and a description of any options the agency considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; (3) A description of each evaluation procedure, test, record, or report the agency uses as a basis for the proposal .”
Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Maryland 1994). “This notice must include a “full explanation” of all procedural safeguards, 34 C.F.R. § 300.505 (a), so that it “fully informs” parents of all of their procedural rights and opportunities.”
Max M. v. Thompson, 592 F. Supp. 1437 (N.D. Ill. 1984). “34 C.F.R. §§ 300.505 (a) (1983). Furthermore, the notice must be written and in language understandable to the general public.”
Tennessee Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Paul B. & the Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 88 F.3d 1466 (6th Cir. 1996). “34 C.F.R. § 300.505 (a); Doe v. Alabama State Dept.”
Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.505 . Under both the IDEA and interpretive case law, the IEP embodied in such a written offer must provide services that are individualized to the child’s needs.”
Andrew Jenkins, Officially, Superintendent D.C. Pub. Schs. v. Theresa M. Squillacote, 935 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.505 (a) (1990). If a parent disagrees with the IEP, she or he may demand a “due process hearing” before an outside examiner, during which the parent may contest the proposed action.”
Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 280 F. Supp. 2d 447 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “34 C.F.R. § 300.505 . Consent for an initial evaluation may not be construed as consent for initial placement 34 C.”
Brandon Leonard, by His Parents & Next Friends, Thomas & Mary Leonard v. Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs., 869 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “34 C.F.R. § 300.505 (regulation allegedly violated by DCPS’s computer error).”
David Abney, by Next Friend Margaret Kantor v. Dist. of Columbia, 849 F.2d 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “§ 1415 (b)(1)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.505 . Although a parent or guardian’s consent need not be obtained before the educational benefits a child is receiving are changed once the child has begun receiving benefits, 34 C.”
Myles S. Ex Rel. SS v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 824 F. Supp. 1549 (M.D. Ala. 1993). “34 C.F.R. § 300.505 . According to Myles’s parents, the failure to provide written notification denied them a procedural safeguard and a due process right guaranteed to them by the IDEA.”
Doyle v. Arlington Cnty. Sch. Bd., 806 F. Supp. 1253 (E.D. Va. 1992). “The placement proposed for Mairin, “Nottingham,” in a “self-contained” classroom, appears on the very face of the school system’s proposed IEPs, both for 1988-89 and for 1989-90.”
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.