Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Forest Grove School Dist. Vs. T. A.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 2009

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

42 entries 3 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. Lorillard Vs. Pons US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1978
  2. Florence County School Dist. Four Vs. Carter US Supreme Court · Oct 06, 1993
  3. i)(2)(C)(iii). See School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  4. a) This Court held in Burlington and Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
    Search
  5. be aware of, and to adopt, a judicial interpretation of a statute when it reenacts that law without change, Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  6. require the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of the private education. See School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  7. Eight years later, we unanimously reaffirmed the availability of reimbursement in Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
    Search
  8. a)(10)(C) are thus best read as elucidative rather than exhaustive. Cf. United States v. Atlantic
    Search
  9. i)(2)(C)(iii). See Branch v. Smith
    Search
  10. s acceptance of funds must be stated unambiguously. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  11. U. S. 1 , 17 (1981). Applying that principle, we held in Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
    Search
  12. generally presume that public-school officials are properly performing their obligations under IDEA. See Schaffer v. Weast
    Search
  13. Footnote 3 Compare Frank G. v. Board
    Search
  14. does not bar reimbursement for students who have not previously received public special-education services), and M. M. v. School
    Search
  15. of Miami-Dade Cty., Fla. , 437 F. 3d 1085, 1099 (CA11 2006) (per curiam) (same), with Greenland School Dist. v. Amy
    Search
  16. We previously granted certiorari to address this question in Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom
    Search
  17. failure to limit the type of private-school placements for which parents may be reimbursed. School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  18. see Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
    Search
  19. i)(2)(C)(iii), it implicitly adopted that construction of the statute. See Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  20. Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  21. Corley v. United
    Search
  22. citing Branch v. Smith
    Search
  23. citing Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  24. with the holdings of Burlington and the other prior decision on the subject, Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
    Search
  25. allows for a motion to dismiss after 30 days. See also Carlisle v. United
    Search
  26. provisions are irreconcilable, the presumption against implied repeals gives way to the later enactment. See Branch v. Smith
    Search
  27. Footnote 5 The majority argues that we already rejected this process as inadequate in School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  28. See School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  29. Burlington and Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
    Search
  30. Cf. United States v. Atlantic
    Search
  31. See Branch v. Smith
    Search
  32. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  33. IDEA. See Schaffer v. Weast
    Search
  34. Compare Frank G. v. Board
    Search
  35. and M. M. v. School
    Search
  36. Greenland School Dist. v. Amy
    Search
  37. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom
    Search
  38. School Comm. of Burlington v. Department
    Search
  39. See Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  40. Branch v. Smith
    Search
  41. Carlisle v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial