James M. v. Hawaii Department of Education
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
803 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (2011)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
James M. was a 19-year-old student with autism who had associated neurological, motor, and speech deficits. James had attended both public and private schools and had received speech and occupational therapies as well as other related services. James’s public school district provided James and his mother (plaintiff) with a proposed individual education plan (IEP) for James to return to the public school. The IEP provided for fewer hours of speech therapy than James had been receiving at his private school and a reduction in James’s access to direct occupational therapy. The district provided evidence, however, that the IEP was constructed to sufficiently address James’s individualized needs, including that the services offered would match or exceed those that James had previously received when he had been enrolled in the public school. James’s mother filed a request to challenge the IEP with the Hawaii Department of Education, alleging that the IEP was deficient to meet James’s educational needs. The hearing officer concluded that the IEP offered James a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). James’s mother appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kobayashi, 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.