34 C.F.R. § 300.7

Charter school

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

Charter school has the meaning given the term in section 4310(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (ESEA).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221i(2)) [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29759, June 30, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: R.B. Ex Rel. F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007).
R.B. Ex Rel. F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “did not have a “serious emotional disturbance” under the criteria enumerated in 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(4) (2003) and CaLCode Regs.”
E.M. Ex Rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 758 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(9) (2005); Cal.Code Regs.”
Davis Ex Rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999). · cites it 2× “" 34 CFR § 300.7 (b)(9) (1998). If, as the majority would have us believe, the behavior that constitutes actionable peer sexual harassment so deviates from the normal teasing and jostling of adolescence that it puts schools on clear notice of potential liability, then a student…”
I v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. 55, 416 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 5× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(1), (4), (9) (2004).”
Parker Ex Rel. T.P. v. Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch., 577 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 5× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (a)(1) (2004) (current version at 34 C.”
Yankton Sch. Dist. v. Harold & Angie Schramm, 93 F.3d 1369 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (b)(7) (an orthopedic impairment is “a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance”).”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 284, Wayzata Area Schs., Wayzata, Minnesota v. A.C., by & Through Her Parent, C.C., 258 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “1998) (holding that student diagnosed with “conduct disorder” did not have an emotional disturbance but was merely “socially maladjusted” under the precursor to 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(4)(h) (2000)). We do not believe, however, that the analysis can be limited to a stark…”
Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 4× “34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(9) (March 12, 1999) (emphasis added).”
Lesesne v. Dist. of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “§ 1400 (d)(1)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (defining “child with a disability”).”
Corchado Ex Rel. Corchado v. Bd. of Educ., 86 F. Supp. 2d 168 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 5× “Given the broad scope of the legislation, it is not surprising that the Act as well as its implementing regulations take an inclusionary approach in defining the term “child with a disability” and embrace within its scope children who suffer from a wide variety of deficits…”
Mary P. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 919 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1996). · cites it 6× “” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (b)(l-13); Doe, 753 F.Supp.”
Tracy v. Beaufort Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 335 F. Supp. 2d 675 (D.S.C. 2004). · cites it 5× “34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (c)(4) (emphasis added).”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(9) — 1 case
Parker Ex Rel. T.P. v. Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch., 577 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2008). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (a)(1) (2004) (current version at 34 C.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(9)(i) — 1 case
Parker Ex Rel. T.P. v. Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch., 577 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2008). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 (a)(1) (2004) (current version at 34 C.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(ll) — 1 case
Rb Ex Rel. Lb v. Bd. of Educ. of City, 99 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
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.