Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 120.17 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 1957 [Repealed, Ex1959 c 71 art 8 s 26]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1956–2017 · leading case: Moubry Ex Rel. Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Minnesota 1998).
Moubry Ex Rel. Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Minnesota 1998). · cites it 20× “Among the procedural frameworks created by the IDEA, Section 1415(b)(2) requires an independent Due Process Hearing to be conducted by a State educational agency, so as to ensure that the parents of handicapped children will be afforded an opportunity to register their…”
Moubry ex rel. Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696, 951 F. Supp. 867 (D. Minnesota 1996). · cites it 18× “Among the procedural safeguards that are mandated by the IDEA, Section 1415(b)(2) requires an independent Due Process Hearing to be conducted by a State educational agency, so as to insure that the parents of handicapped children will be afforded an opportunity to register their…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. Ex Rel. J.D., 948 F. Supp. 860 (D. Minnesota 1995). · cites it 17× “The requirement of Minn.Stat. § 120.17, subd. 3b(f), that the hearing decision be rendered no later than 45 days after a request for a hearing was waived by [S.”
C.N. Ex Rel. J.N. v. Willmar Pub. Schs., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “3d at 578 (emphasis added) (quoting former Minn.Stat. § 120.17, subd. 3b(e)). And in Thompson , we concluded that "[i]f a student changes school districts and does not request a due process hearing, his or her right to challenge prior educational services is not preserved.”
Glazier v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 876, 558 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “Any decision issued by a hearing officer may be appealed to the hearing review officer within 30 calendar days of receipt of that written decision.”
Peter v. Johnson, 958 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 7× “See Minn.Stat. § 120.17 (1994); Minn. Rules Chapter 3525.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 277 v. Pautz, 295 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 120.17 (1978). In April 1978, the child’s parents, residents of Mound, Minnesota, contacted officials of the Independent School District # 277 (hereafter I.”
Moubry v. Kreb, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (D. Minnesota 1999). · cites it 4× “XIV; (b) Whether there is subject matter jurisdiction for the imposition of sanctions comprised of the school district’s attorney’s fees and/or the hearing officer’s fee under Minn.Stat. § 120.17; (c) Whether it was error to dismiss the hearing and impose sanctions without…”
Special Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. R.M.M. Ex Rel. O.M., 861 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “The statutory framework governing special education has been amended many times in the past 60 years.”
Sharon Digre, for Herself & as Parent & Next Friend on Behalf of Sean Digre, a Minor v. Roseville Schs. Indep. Dist. No. 623, 841 F.2d 245 (8th Cir. 1988). “, the related Minnesota handicapped children statute, Minn.Stat. § 120.17(3b)(i), and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. Ex Rel. J.D., 88 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “See Minn.Stat.Ann. § 120.17, subd. 3b(e); Minn.”
Mary Schuldt & Douglas Schuldt, on Behalf of Themselves & Their Minor Daughter, Erika Schuldt v. Mankato Indep. Sch., Dist. No. 77, 937 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1991). “§§ 1400-85 (1988) (amended in 1991 to be named the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”), Minn.Stat.Ann. § 120.17 (Supp.1991) and 42 U.”
— Minn. Stat. § 120.17(3b)(i) — 1 case
Sharon Digre, for Herself & as Parent & Next Friend on Behalf of Sean Digre, a Minor v. Roseville Schs. Indep. Dist. No. 623, 841 F.2d 245 (8th Cir. 1988). “, the related Minnesota handicapped children statute, Minn.Stat. § 120.17(3b)(i), and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
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.