Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359  - A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim.
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 532 U.S. 942  - The fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for reimbursement.
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999  – De minimis progress is not sufficient; students have the right to challenging objectives. Districts must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make appropriate progress in light of the child’s unique circumstances.
Bd. of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176  - An appropriate education is one that is reasonably calculated to allow the child to receive educational benefits. It does not mean that parents are entitled to the best education, only one that is merely appropriate.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49  - The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 322  - The purpose of the Pendency provision is to provide consistency and stability in the education of a child with a disability.
Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F 2d. 904 [2d Cir., 1982] - Pendency has the effect of an automatic injunction, which is imposed without regard to such factors as irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and a balancing of the hardships.