Skip to main content
LIRA@BC Law

Abstract

On July 14, 2011, in E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded a case because the district court applied an improper standard in determining whether a clinical psychologist’s report constituted “additional evidence” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit broadly defined the “additional evidence” courts must consider in hearing IDEA claims.

Files

File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
2.pdf
7 Sep 2022
Public
219 kB

Metrics

Metadata

  • Subject
    • Evidence

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

  • Volume
    • 32

  • Issue
    • 3

  • Pagination
    • E. Supp. 11

  • Date submitted

    7 September 2022