Read Our Latest Featured Articles

Request Free Consultation

Case Law You Should Know

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)

This landmark Supreme Court case established that schools are required to provide personalized instruction and support services sufficient to permit a child with disabilities to benefit educationally from their education. However, it clarified that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not require schools to maximize a child's potential.

Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017)

The Supreme Court raised the standards for educational benefits under IDEA, ruling that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. This decision emphasizes the need for schools to offer more than minimal progress for students with disabilities.

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023)

In this recent decision, the Supreme Court held that students who settle IDEA complaints are not barred from pursuing monetary damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case underscores that exhausting IDEA remedies is not a prerequisite for ADA claims seeking damages.

Lolita S. v. Jefferson County Board of Education

This case highlights the school's obligation to provide appropriate evaluations and services under IDEA. The court ruled in favor of Lolita S., finding that the school district failed to identify her disability and provide necessary support, thus denying her a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

El Paso Independent School District v. Richard R.

The court held that the school district violated IDEA by not properly implementing the student's IEP. This case emphasizes the importance of faithfully executing IEPs to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities.

DeKalb County Board of Education v. Manifold

An Alabama district could not convince a District Court to reverse an unfavorable due process decision simply by arguing that the IHO improperly based his decision about a deaf high schooler's need for CART services on Title II's "effective communication" requirement.

Not Sure If You Have A Case?

Request a free consultation and our attorneys will provide expert legal advice for your situation, or click below to read our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), and see if your questions are answered there.

Request Free Consultation

Our experienced attorneys are here to help you navigate your legal challenges. Contact us today to discuss your case.

By submitting this form you agree to our terms of use and our privacy policy.

Contact Us Over Phone:

Call us to discuss your legal needs. We are ready to provide the guidance you need.

Contact Us Over Email:

Reach out via email for any inquiries, and our team will get back to you promptly.

Visit Our Office In-Person:

Meet with us in person at our office to discuss your case and get the legal support you need.

Sears Building, 5809 Feldspar Way, Hoover, AL 35244