-
Friedrich L v. Thomas
Friedrich argued that students with learning disabilities should have the right to appropriate education. It was also argued that the state did not provide the programs for children who were disabled as appointed by Pennsylvania's Special Education.
Thomas argued that Pennsylvania did in fact provide the correct services.
The final outcome ruled in favor for Friedrich. The proper measures were taken to ensure all children receive the proper services. -
Zoberst v. Catalina Hills
The state argued that Catalina did not require sign language interpreters even though she was born deaf which is a disability. It was argued that because of the school she was in she did not fall under the IDEA requirements. The court replied with the fact that the services were a requirement that Catalina was entitled to no matter which educational setting she was in.Everything proven here is still relevant today because it provides services to all children with disabilities. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
During the school day, Garret required services of a specially trained nurse because of his health needs. The school district, believing that they were not obligated under IDEA to provide continuous nursing care, refused to provide the services. The Supreme Court held that the school district had to pay for the nursing services required by Garret when he was at school. This is important because children deserve their services to ensure they are able to learn safely and effectively.