34 C.F.R. § 300.515

Timelines and convenience of hearings and reviews

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

(a) The public agency must ensure that not later than 45 days after the expiration of the 30 day period under § 300.510(b), or the adjusted time periods described in § 300.510(c)—

(1) A final decision is reached in the hearing; and

(2) A copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties.

(b) The SEA must ensure that not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review—

(1) A final decision is reached in the review; and

(2) A copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties.

(c) A hearing or reviewing officer may grant specific extensions of time beyond the periods set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at the request of either party.

(d) Each hearing and each review involving oral arguments must be conducted at a time and place that is reasonably convenient to the parents and child involved.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii), 1415(g), 1415(i)(1))

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Payne Ex Rel. D.P. v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Payne Ex Rel. D.P. v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (a). And so long as plaintiffs exhaust their IDEA remedies, nothing prevents them from subsequently bringing civil claims based upon violations of constitutional or statutory rights.”

Fry ex rel. E.F. v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 788 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (a). If the local agency conducted the hearing, the decision can be appealed to the state educational agency, which conducts an impartial review and issues a decision within 30 days.”

In the Interest of Doe Child., 93 P.3d 1145 (Haw. 2004). “HAR § 8-56-80 is based upon 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 , which provides as follows: Surrogate parents.”

Megan C. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 57 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D. Minnesota 1999). · cites it 2× “The provision for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs is also set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 of the implementing regulations for IDEA § 1415.”

O.O. Ex Rel. Pabo v. Dist. of Columbia, 573 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008). “34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (a)(1). In this case, the due process complaint was filed on September 14, 2006.”

G.B. v. Dist. of Columbia, 78 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2015). “’s Opp’n at 1 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 ). On January 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the present action invoking the IDEA’S “stay-put provision” and requested that the District fund G.”

M.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 982 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (b). . See Opp. Mem. at 5.”

Morris v. Dist. of Columbia, 38 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.D.C. 2014). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 . For *68 instance in this case, Ms.”

M.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 15 F. Supp. 3d 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (2006). . See FAC ¶ 219.”

R.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 15 F. Supp. 3d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “5(k)(2); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 (b). This provision was clearly violated by the issuance of the SRO Decision in October.”

Zdrowski v. Rieck, 119 F. Supp. 3d 643 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “§ 1415 ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 ). These procedural requirements are meant to give “[federal courts-generalists with no expertise in the educational needs of handicapped students — .”

Wilkins Ex Rel. D.W. v. Dist. of Columbia, 571 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 ; D.C. Mun. Regs, tit.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) — 1 case

C.P. v. New Jersey Dep't of Educ. (D.N.J. 2024).

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.