TITLE

PLAYING LAWYERS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ENDOWING PARENTS WITH SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER IDEA IN Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007)

AUTHOR(S)
Steiner, Logan
PUB. DATE
June 2008
SOURCE
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Summer2008, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p1169
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses a court case which stresses the implications of providing parents with substantive rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the U.S. In Winkelman v. Parma City School District, the Supreme Court ruled that parents of a disabled child were entitled to pursue IDEA claims. Also noted is the failure of the court to consider the policies underlying the common law prohibition against non-attorney representation. A mosaic-like analysis was used by the court to reach the conclusion.
ACCESSION #
34074161

 

Related Articles

  • Parents May Self-Represent in IDEA Cases. Boswell, Susan // ASHA Leader;6/19/2007, Vol. 12 Issue 8, p1 

    The article reports the May 2007 results of Winkelman v. Parma City School District, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents may represent their children's interests in special education disputes without hiring an attorney. The justices agreed that parents have some rights to self...

  • Supreme Court rules for parents in IDEA case. Cook, Glenn // American School Board Journal;Jul2007, Vol. 194 Issue 7, p5 

    The article discusses the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Winkelman versus Parma City School District. According to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not differentiate, through isolated references to various procedures and...

  • Recovery of Expert Fees in Special Education Due Process Hearings. YELL, MITCHELL L.; KATSIYANNIS, ANTONIS; RYAN, JOSEPH B.; MCDUFFIE, KIMBERLY // Intervention in School & Clinic;Nov2008, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p112 

    The article focuses on court cases in the U.S. regarding special education. The cases are "Schaffer v. Weast," "Winkelman v. Parma City Schools," and "Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy." In "Winkelman v. Parma," the court ruled that parents may represent their...

  • ACCESS GRANTED: THE WINKELMAN CASE USHERS IN A NEW ERA IN PARENTAL ADVOCACY. McNeal, Laura // Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal;2010, Issue 1, p129 

    The article discusses the decision in the Winkelman vs. Parma City School District and its implications on public schools, teachers, and parents of children with disabilities. As mandated by the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents of children with disabilities can...

  • Supremem Court Addresses Parental IDEA.  // ConnSENSE Bulletin;Jan2007, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p6 

    The article offers news briefs related to education in the U.S. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Winkelman v. Parma City School District to determine if parents can represent themselves and/or their children as a non-lawyers -pro se in Federal court under Individuals With Disabilities...

  • Supreme Court Rejects Case On Spec. Ed. 'Burden of Proof'. Walsh, Mark // Education Week;10/29/2008, Vol. 28 Issue 10, p4 

    The article discusses the denial of an appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case regarding special education. The parent of a disabled child had appealed a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that the burden of proof in disputes regarding special education under the U.S....

  • ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, PETITIONER v. PEARL MURPHY ET VIR: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  // Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present);2009, p1 

    The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, case number 05-18, argued on April 19, 2006 and decided on June 26, 2006. The respondents prevailed in their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action to require...

  • COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM POST-SCHAFFER: THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND PREEMPTION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION. Freed, Lara Gelbwasser // Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal;2009, Issue 1, p103 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the burden of proof was awarded to the plaintiff on the special education hearing of Schaffer v. Weast. The U.S. Supreme Court used the default rule in its decision on the challenged made on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the...

  • ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION v. MURPHY ET VIR.: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  // Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present);2009, p1 

    The article presents information on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, case number 05-18, argued on April 19, 2006 and decided on June 26, 2006. The respondents prevailed in their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sign out of this library

Other Topics