Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), both the parents of the special-education child and the school district must participate in a joint resolution session or mediation prior to a due process hearing, except in the case of a joint waiver. Petitioner’s due process request was dismissed without prejudice because the school district had […]
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, which had upheld Judge Amanda Baxter’s determination that Plaintiff, a student, was not denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Plaintiff’s parents challenged her educational placement in a severe autism class, preferring she be given an in-home placement because
Special diet does not justify in-home placement of special education child. Read More
OSAH is pleased to announce the inauguration of the Public Benefits Project in partnership with Emory University School of Law and Atlanta Legal Aid Society. As of February 2014, nineteen Emory Law students, under the supervision of Atlanta Legal Aid Attorney Nancy Rhinehart, will be providing free legal advice and representation to public benefit recipients
Administrative Law Judge Patrick Woodard and OSAH staff attorney Shoshana Elon were recently elected as chair and vice chair of the Administrative Law Section of the Georgia Bar, respectively. A revitalization of the section is underway, with several social and educational functions currently being planned. The first event is tentatively scheduled for March 2014.
Administrative Law Section Undergoing Revitalization. Read More
The collective knowledge doctrine acknowledges that officers are justified in relying on the statements of other officers in forming reasonable suspicion. The doctrine does not, however, allow for the arresting officer to establish that the detaining officer had reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a traffic stop through evidence of the out-of-court statements of that officer.
The collective knowledge doctrine does not negate a hearsay objection. Read More
State improperly dismissed Petitioner’s appeal as untimely. Petitioner filed the appeal within thirty days of the date on the face of the letter but more than thirty days after receiving it in the mail. Petitioner was entitled to rely on the date of letter as the date of issuance. Under the facts of the case,
Appeal timely filed within thirty days of date on denial letter. Read More
