Amanda J. v. Clark County, 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001).
2.
BatemanB. D. (2017). Individualized education programs for children with disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P.PullenP. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 91–108). Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
5.
Doyle v. Arlington, 806 F. Supp 1253 (E.D. VA, 1992)
6.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
7.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
8.
IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 (2006).
9.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).
10.
Kirby v. Cabell County Board of Education, 46 IDELR 156 (S.D. W.V. 2006).
11.
LakeS. E. (2002). The top 10 IEP errors: How to avoid them, how to fix them. LRP.
12.
NeubertD.LeconteP. (2013). Age-appropriate transition assessment: The position of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413487768
13.
SlaterA.E. (2010). Placement under the IDEA: Avoiding predetermination and other legal pitfalls. LRP
14.
WeatherlyJ. (2019, January). Writing legally defensible IEPs. Workshop held at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Indianapolis, IN.
15.
YellM. L. (2019). Special education and the law (5th ed.). Pearson.
16.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2013). Avoiding procedural errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304600107
17.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM.ChristleC. A. (2016). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(X), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916662204
18.
ZirkelP. A. (2017). Failure to implement the IEP: The third dimension of FAPE. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317732582
19.
ZirkelP. A.HetrickA. (2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most judicially vulnerable?Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849