Eric Washington Central Catholic High School v. Indiana High School Athletic Association Incorporated Robert B Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Tesmer v. COLORADO HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASS'N. (2006), 98 Cal. App. 4th 256 - Fry v. Saenz (2002)
4 district · 7 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 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Alexander v. Choate
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We think that the individualized approach is consistent with the protections intended by the ADA. The entire point of Arline’s 3 statement that a person is otherwise qualified if he is able to participate with the aid of reasonable accommodations is that some exceptions ought to be made to general requirements to allow opportunities to individuals with disabilities. To require a focus on the general purposes behind a rule without considering the effect an exception for a disabled individual would have on those purposes would negate the reason for requiring reasonable exceptions. Id. at 852 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[Discrimination under [Title II of the ADA] may be established by evidence that (1) the defendant intentionally acted on the basis of the disability, (2) the defendant refused to provide a reasonable modification, or (3) the defendant’s rule disproportionally impacts disabled people.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As is obvious, the plaintiff has no evidence, and has not even suggested, that the.-formulation or implementation of the MHSAA’s eight-semester rule has in any way been motivated by considerations of barring students with learning disabilities from play. As we explained in Sandison with regard to the 19-year age limit at issue there, the regulation is a “neutral rule” — neutral, that is, with respect to disability — and as far as the record shows, is neutrally applied by the MHSAA. Throughout the plaintiffs’ first three years of high school, [the age limit] did not bar the students from playing interscholastic sports, yet the students were of course learning disabled during those years. It was not until they turned nineteen that [the age limit] operated to disqualify them. Accordingly, we must conclude that the age regulation does not exclude students from participating “solely by reason of’ their disability. Sandison, 64 F.3d at 1032 . As we concluded, “[t]he plaintiffs’ respective learning disability does not prevent the two students from meeting the age requirement; the passage of time does.” Id. at 1033 . McPherson’s claim depends, therefore, upon a showing that the MHSAA could have reasonably accommodated him and refused to do so.”
1 later decision 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.