J.P. v. County School Board of Hanover County
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
516 F.3d 254 (2008)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
J.P. was a young boy with autism. J.P.’s parents (plaintiffs) sought a due-process hearing to determine whether the individualized education program (IEP) developed for J.P. by the County School Board of Hanover County, Virginia (Hanover) (defendant) was adequate under the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (act). After considering the evidence presented during the hearing, the hearing officer concluded that the IEP was appropriate under the act. The hearing officer’s 25-page opinion included summaries of expert-witness testimony, an outline of the relevant legal standards, and the hearing officer’s findings of fact and legal conclusions. The summaries of witnesses’ testimony were each one to two pages and captured the essence of the testimony on the central issues of the case. J.P’s parents appealed. The federal district court concluded that deference to the hearing officer’s findings was not required because the hearing officer’s opinion was insufficiently detailed. The district court criticized the hearing officer’s summaries of testimony as terse and conclusory and claimed that the opinion failed to recite the experts’ opinions and completely lacked written analysis. The district court found that the IEP was inappropriate. Hanover appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traxler, 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.