district court create a non-statutory category of private-school students and thereby err in awarding temporary services? The following is the section of the opinion in which the district court allegedly created a new category for reimbursement: Therefore, a student, like Kelsey, who was enrolled in the Winston School for her senior year as a result of a settlement agreement and IEP, developed by a local school district, should at a minimum receive the rights provided to students who were unilaterally placed in private school by her parent. 34 C.F.R. § 300.132, 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(a). Under IDEA, Kelsey should be given greater rights than a parentally placed student in private school Sam K. [ex rel. Diane C. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 788 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2015) ] (<HOLDING>). Therefore, at a minimum, DISD was obligated
holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea