Zipperer Zipperer’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 329 F. Supp. 2d 20 - Kaseman v. District of Columbia (2004), Belinda King, by Her Next Friend Scarlet King v. Floyd County Board of Education (2000)
13 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Spiegler v. District of Columbia · Adler v. Education Department of New York
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he district court, rather than the administrative agency, has jurisdiction to award fees....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Based upon the absence of consensus, the Department will continue to allow maximum flexibility to States for structuring the process by which parents who are prevailing parties under Part B of the Act may request attorneys' fees reimbursement ... States could choose as a matter of State law to permit hearing officers to award attorneys' fees to parents who are prevailing parties under Part B of the Act , and not to require that they do so, or imply that IDEA would be the source of the authority for granting hearing officers that role. If a State allows hearing officer's to award attorney's fees, requirements regarding training on attorneys fees would be a State matter." D.E. 1-2 (quoting 64 Fed. Reg. 12615 (March 12, 1999) ) (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he short statutes of limitations associated with appeals of administrative procedures, while appropriate when a child’s Individualized Education Plan is at issue in a substantive appeal of an administrative determination, are too short to vindicate the underlying federal policies associated with the fee-claims provisions of the IDEA. See, e.g., J.B. [By and Through C.B. v. Essex-Caledonia Supervisory Union, 943 F.Supp. 387 , 391 (D.Vt.1996) ] (“Congressional policy favors the protection of the educational rights of the [disabled]. A short statute of limitations in attorneys’ fee claims would frustrate that policy.”) [Zipperer v. School Bd. of Seminole County, Fla., supra, 111 F. 3d at 851 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.