Hunger ex rel. Hunger v. Leininger’s Empirical Analysis
15 F.3d 664 · 1994
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (1996), Heather Kathy v. State of Wisconsin T (1997)
58 federal appellate · 10 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
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Thomas v. Arn · Camp v. Pitts · Farrar v. Hobby · Ojai Unified School District v. Jackson · Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd.
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he motion for summary judgment is simply the procedural vehicle for asking the judge to decide the case on the basis of the administrative record.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]ostly they lost. They wanted to knock out the [IEP] for [their daughter]; they failed. They wanted an injunction against the withdrawal of the transitional services; they failed. They got an order for those [transitional] services but except for nine months of counseling by a social worker the services were never provided. So all they actually received was the smallest part of the inhome transitional services for nine months. And what is the value of those services? They had no intrinsic value; they were not rehabilitative; they were intended ... merely to facilitate her reentry into school. The services were terminated in November 1992 without achieving that goal ... She is still at home.”
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.