34 C.F.R. § 300.509
Model forms
(a) Each SEA must develop model forms to assist parents and public agencies in filing a due process complaint in accordance with §§ 300.507(a) and 300.508(a) through (c) and to assist parents and other parties in filing a State complaint under §§ 300.151 through 300.153. However, the SEA or LEA may not require the use of the model forms.
(b) Parents, public agencies, and other parties may use the appropriate model form described in paragraph (a) of this section, or another form or other document, so long as the form or document that is used meets, as appropriate, the content requirements in § 300.508(b) for filing a due process complaint, or the requirements in § 300.153(b) for filing a State complaint.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1987–2006 · leading case: Geoffrey Ryan Stringer Robin Charee Christopher v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist. Missouri Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 446 F.3d 799 (2d Cir. 2006).
Geoffrey Ryan Stringer Robin Charee Christopher v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist. Missouri Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 446 F.3d 799 (2d Cir. 2006). “In the district court, plaintiffs claimed that the statute and regulation give them the option of choosing either a written record or an “electronic verbatim” audio recording of the hearing.”
Gumm Ex Rel. Gumm v. Nevada Dep't of Educ., 113 P.3d 853 (Nev. 2005). “310; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (2004). 11 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (g), (i)(2); NAC 388.”
Vultaggio ex rel. Vultaggio v. Bd. of Educ., 343 F.3d 598 (2d Cir. 2003). “§ 1415 (h)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (a)(1), whereas no such right is conferred in a CRP.”
Anthony v. Dist. of Columbia, 463 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (b)(1) (2004); D.C. Mun.”
Natrona Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Ryan, 764 P.2d 1019 (Wyo. 1988). “If the state agency conducts the hearing, then the decision of the hearing officer is deemed administratively final, 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (1987), as differentiated from a hearing involving the local educational agency which, on appeal, must first be reviewed by the state…”
Hiller v. Bd. of Educ. of Brunswick Cent. Sch. Dist., 674 F. Supp. 73 (N.D.N.Y. 1987). “In particular, 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 states: A decision made in a hearing .”
Fulginiti v. Roxbury Twp. Pub. Schs., 921 F. Supp. 1320 (D.N.J. 1996). “§ 1414 (e) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (1986), appealing the decision of the ALJ.”
Antkowiak by Antkowiak v. Ambach, 653 F. Supp. 1405 (W.D.N.Y. 1987). “8 Here, neither plaintiff nor the local school district was aggrieved, and I found that plaintiff was not obliged, pursuant to federal law, to appeal the hearing officer’s decision to the Commissioner.”
Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 321 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2004). “Bill 15-580), the Court also concluded that DCPS ultimately is the responsible entity under the IDEA for the implementation of the IDEA, for compliance with its 45-day hearing and decision requirement, and for the procedural fairness of any due process hearings conducted.”
Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long Reach Unified Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002). “Code § 56505(e)(3)(provid-ing right to compel, cross-examine, and confront witnesses); 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 (a)(2) (same). California law permits witness testimony to be taken by television, 5 Cal.”
Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4 of Bixby, 921 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1990). “§ 1415 (c); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.509 -.510. That decision may be reviewed in an action brought in state court or in the local federal district court.”
Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3rd Cir. 1996). “§ 1415 (e) and (e)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.509 ). Decisions made at the state level, according to the school district, are final to the extent that they are not appealed for judicial review.”
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.