Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 157 F. Supp. 2d 509 - Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare (2001), 1 F. Supp. 2d 456 - Anderson v. Department of Public Welfare (1998)
8 district ·
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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Turner v. Safley · Papasan v. Allain · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for particular programs and services provided by the prison system in the sense that they must meet certain eligibility criteria for participation. For example, to qualify for mental health treatment, inmates must be mentally ill, not pose a threat to themselves or others, and not have a history of violence. The defendants' interpretation would immunize from the reach of these statutes any compulsory service provided by the state, such as public education or jury service. 22 The defendants also argue that because prisons serve the state's penological interests, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Armstrong v. Wilson“Crawford, 115 F.3d at 485 ; see also Yeskey, 118 F.3d at 173 . 24 Although the defendants' federalism arguments have some force in the context of prisons, which traditionally are areas of state concern, we have held that other functions traditionally reserved to the states are subject to the ADA and RA. For example, in Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996), we held that the ADA applies to a quarantine law enacted by the state to protect public health under its police powers. Although”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Armstrong v. Wilson
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.