Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel H. ex rel. Holland’s Empirical Analysis
14 F.3d 1398 · 1994
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Miller National Labor Relations Board v. California Pacific Medical Center (1994), Lillbask Mauclaire v. State of Connecticut Department of Education S (2005)
23 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Honig v. Doe · Massa v. United States · Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(B) procedures to assure that, to the maximum' extent appropriate, children with disabilities ... are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the educational benefits of placement full-time in a regular class; (2) the non-academic benefits of such placement; (3) the effect [the child] ha[s] on the teacher and children in the regular class; and (4) the costs of mainstreaming [the child].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“have conflicting educational philosophies and perceptions of the District's mainstreaming obligation”); Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1040 (5th Cir.1989) (finding dispute not moot where each side”
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.