"We are convinced that the central role of the IEP in the educational scheme contemplated by the [Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now the IDEA) ] and in the standard of review developed in Rowley gives rise to a presumption in favor of the educational placement established by [the student's] IEP. Moreover, because the IEP is jointly developed by the school district and the parents, fairness requires that the party attacking its terms should bear the burden of showing why the educational setting established by the IEP is not appropriate."
How later courts described this case
- "We are convinced that the central role of the IEP in the educational scheme contemplated by the [Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now the IDEA) ] and in the standard of review developed in Rowley gives rise to a presumption in favor of the educational placement established by [the student's] IEP. Moreover, because the IEP is jointly developed by the school district and the parents, fairness requires that the party attacking its terms should bear the burden of showing why the educational setting established by the IEP is not appropriate."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
741 F.2d 82
19 Ed. Law Rep. 477
Henri and Mary TATRO, Individually, and as Next Friend of
Amber Tatro, A Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
The STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants,
State Board of Education, Defendant-Appellant,
The Irving Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant,
Cross-Appellee.
No. 81-1454.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 23, 1984.
James W. Deatherage, Irving, Tex., for Irving Independent School Dist.
Tally F. Parker, Jr., O. Glenn Weaver, Irving, Tex., amicus curiae for Irving Independent School Dist. and Texas Ass'n of School Administrators.
Mark White, Atty. Gen., John W. Fainter, Jr., 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul R. Gavia, Chief, State and County Affairs, Martha H. Allan, Richard L. Arnett, TEA, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for State Bd. of Educ.
Craig T. Enoch, James Todd, Austin, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BROWN, GEE and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
1
As directed by the mandate of the Supreme Court, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3371 , 82 L.Ed.2d 664 , we vacate our judgment insofar only as it affirms the trial court's award of attorneys' fees, 703 F.2d 823 , and reverse that award. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It is so
2
ORDERED.