Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874, 73 Ed.Law Rep. 969 (E.D. Cal. 1992), affirmed sub nom. Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398, 89 Ed.Law Rep. 57 (9th Cir. 1994).
2.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
3.
Courts perched to speed schools' inclusion pace, researchers say. (1994). Special Education Report, 20(18), 1 & 3.
4.
Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1964).
5.
MoscovitchE. (1993). Special education: Good intentions gone awry. Boston: The Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research.
6.
MR v. Lincolnwood Board of Education, District 74, 843 F. Supp. 1236, 89 Ed.Law Rep. 834 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
7.
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 789 F. Supp. 1322, 75 Ed.Law Rep. 258 (D.N.J. 1992), 801 F. Supp. 1393 (D.N.J. 1992), affirmed 995 F.2d 1204, 83 Ed.Law Rep. 1009 (3d Cir. 1993).
8.
OsborneA. G., & DiMattiaP. (1994). The IDEA'S least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications. Exceptional Children, 61, 6–14.
9.
VaccaR. S., & HudginsH. C. (1991). The legacy of the Burger Court and the schools 1969–1986. Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 733).
10.
YellM. (1995). The Least Restrictive-Environment mandate and the courts: Judicial activism or judicial restraint?Exceptional Children, 61, 579–582.
