Although numerous studies have investigated autism methodology case law, few studies have investigated case law regarding reading methodology, particularly the Orton-Gillingham approach, for students with reading disabilities. We provide the results of a systematic case analysis of all published Orton-Gillingham decisions from the original passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through 2005. Results indicate that in the past 30 years, hearing/review officers and courts reviewed 64 Orton-Gillingham cases, with 77% occurring within the last 10 years. Unlike autism methodology cases, districts have won an overwhelming majority (75%). Although inconclusive, the addition of the terms "peer-reviewed research" and "scientifically based research" in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA may benefit parents in Orton-Gillingham methodology disputes, thus leading to increased litigation. This article concludes with recommendations for reversing the upward trend in the number of Orton-Gillingham reading methodology disputes.