HillD., MartinE. D., & Nelson-HeadC. (2011). Examination of case law (2007–2008) regarding autism spectrum disorder and violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Preventing School Failure, 55, 214–225.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § § 1400.1 et seq. (2012).
13.
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Elizabeth E., 798 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Colo. 2011), aff'd, 702 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).
MaagJ. W., & KatsiyannisA. (2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 31, 348–360.
20.
Memorandum to Chief State School Officers and State Directors of Special Education, 51 IDELR ¶ 49 (OSEP 2008).
21.
Michael P. v. Dep't of Educ., State of Hawaii, 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011).
22.
MorenoG., & BullockL. M. (2011). Principles of positive behaviour supports.Journal of Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 16, 117–121.
23.
N. St. Paul-Maplewood Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 622, 110 LRP 34454 (Minn. SEA 2010).
24.
ObringerS. J., & CoffeyK. (2010). Major case law: Individuals with physical disabilities and health impairments.Physical Disabilities: Education & Related Services, 29(1), 7–18.
25.
Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Final bulletin for agency good guidance practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007).
SmithC. R., KatsiyannisA., & RyanJ. B. (2011). Challenges of serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Legal and policy considerations.Behavioral Disorders, 36, 185–193.
29.
Student with a Disability, 54 IDELR ¶ 209 (Wis. SEA 2010).
30.
T.W. v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 610 F.3d 588 (11th Cir. 2010).
31.
WalkerD. W., & DavesD. (2010). Response to intervention and the courts: Litigation-based guidance.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 40–46.
32.
WrightP., HaleJ. B., BlackensonE. M., EusebioE. C., & DixonS. G. (2013). Forest Grove v. T.A. rejoinder to Zirkel: An attempt to profit from malfeasance?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 318–325.
33.
YellM., & DrasgowE. (2001). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases.Journal of Special Education, 33, 205–214.
34.
ZirkelP. A. (2006). Suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities: The latest requirements.West's Education Law Reporter, 214, 445–449.
35.
ZirkelP. A. (2011a). Case law for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans: An empirical analysis. SeattleUniversity Law Review, 35, 175–212.
36.
ZirkelP. A. (2011b). State laws and guidelines for RTI: Additional implementation features.Communiqué, 39(7), 30–32.
37.
ZirkelP. A. (2012). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. In IDEA: A handy desk reference to the law, regulations, and indicators (pp. 669–752). Albany, NY: LexisNexis.
38.
ZirkelP. A. (2013). A comprehensive evaluation of the Supreme Court'sForest Grove decision? Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 313–317.
39.
ZirkelP. A., & LyonsC. A. (2011). Restraining the use of restraints with students with disabilities: An empirical analysis of the case law.Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 10, 323–354.
40.
ZirkelP. A., & McGuireB. L. (2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 100–112.