Question:

Discuss about the Legal studies-techniques of legal research?

Answer:

Least restrictive environment

Least restrictive environment (LRE) is a program that included in the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which describes, a student with disabilities has rights and opportunity to get proper education with non-disable peer. It is a principal which control or guide educational programs.

The aim of LRE is to give proper education to disable children. They make it sure that in this education program the special children got a proper classroom, study materials, assistance , special education guide which helps the children to be educate in their own peers (Crockett &

Kauffman 2013).

Part 1

1. Title: Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Sch. Dist. Family Appealed Decision in Discrimination Case to Supreme Court (Discrimination, accommodation, service dog, failure to exhaust) Series: No. 14-1137

ON BRIEF: James F. Hermon, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants. Timothy J. Mullins, Kenneth B. Chapie, GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Appellees. ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DONALD, J., joined. DAUGHTREY, J. (pp. 14–23), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

2. Title:  Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Sch. Dist.Family Appealed Decision in Discrimination Case to Supreme Court (Discrimination, accommodation, service dog, failure to exhaust)  Series: No. 14-1137

In this matter, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a ruling by a Michigan federal court found that Elhena Fry’s parents requested a special education process through hearing where her parents exhaust administrative remedies before filing the case of monetary damages under ADA and sec- 504. In this section parest can get administrative remedies through IDEA (Huss , 2016)

Part 2

1. R., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael HANSEN, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Agency For Persons with Disabilities. No. 12–14212. Decided: August 20, 2013

J.R is a man who was admitted to non-secure resident services which was controlled by Florida Department of Children and Family Services in 2004. He filed a case against Michael Hansen the director of Agency for Persons with Disabilities for violating the § 393.11  of Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, where that organization tried to risk deprived the liberty for the people who are involve in non-secure residential services.

2. The District court explained, it is APD’s responsibility to look after their disable clients who comes for admission in their agency. No one can dispute the circuit court, which issues the basic involuntary admission order for jurisdiction.
3. The case section is totally relevant according the § 393.11 of Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In this matter the District Court defines,” employed the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to find that the statutory scheme provided constitutionally sufficient process largely on the basis of its finding that § 393.11 “places an implicit burden on APD, rather than the client, to petition the [admitting] court for release from an order of involuntary admission when the conditions for release are indicated.” The District Court certainly recognized that “section 393.11 contains no provision expressly describing APD’s responsibilities should the time come when a developmentally disabled client no longer satisfies the involuntary admission requirements.”
4. J.R., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael HANSEN, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Agency For Persons with Disabilities, Defendant–Appellee. No. 12–14212.

In United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit the District Judge Katherine Debriere wrote the opinion on the year of August 20, 2013.  Kristen Cooley Lentz, Peter Prescott Sleasman, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Newberry, FL, applies for Plaintiff  and Jonathan Daniel Grabb, Michael A. Palecki, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Tallahassee, FL applied for Defendant (Perlin , 2015).

References

Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Routledge.

Murdick, N. L., Gartin, B. L., & Fowler, G. A. (2013). Special education law. Pearson Higher Ed.

Perlin, M. L. (2015). ‘There’s a Dyin’Voice within Me Reaching Out Somewhere’: How TJ Can Bring Voice to the Teaching of Mental Disability Law and Criminal Law.

Huss, R. J. (2016). Canines in the Classroom Revisited: Recent Developments Relating to Students’ Utilization of Service Animals at Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions. Alb. Gov’t L. Rev., 9, 1.