J.C. v. Central Regular School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
81 F.3d 389 (1996)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
J.C. was a severely developmentally disabled teenage boy who received special-education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from the Central Regular School District (the district). J.C.’s individualized education program (IEP) was designed to help J.C. make progress in taking physical care of himself, such as dressing and eating, and in general communication and life skills. J.C. had made progress with some of these skills when he was younger, but his parents (plaintiffs) noticed that his progress had plateaued in his current educational placement and in some cases had recently regressed. J.C.’s parents challenged his IEP through an administrative appeal, but their claims were denied at that level. J.C.’s parents then appealed in federal district court, requesting a new placement and compensatory education beyond J.C.’s twenty-first birthday to make up for the deficiencies in his current placement. The district court held that the district had violated the IDEA and granted a new residential placement for J.C. The court denied the request for compensatory education, however, based on a good-faith standard of review. The district appealed the residential placement award, and J.C.’s parents appealed the denial of compensatory education.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.