William Caruso’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 2 state decisions

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 4.33.3 provides that seating locations for people who use wheelchairs shall be dispersed throughout the seating area and shall be located to provide lines of sight comparable to those for all viewing areas. This requirement appears to be adequate for theaters and concert halls, but may not suffice in sports arenas or race tracks where the audience frequently stands throughout a large portion of the game or event. In alterations of existing sports arenas, accessible spaces are frequently provided at the lower part of a seating tier projecting out above a lower seating tier or are built out over existing seats at the top of a tier providing a great differential in height. These solutions can work in newly constructed sports arenas as well, if sight lines relative to standing patrons are considered at the time of the initial design. The Board seeks comments on whether full lines of sight over standing spectators in sports arenas and other similar assembly areas should be required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 453 F. Supp. 2d 1193 - Miller v. California Speedway Corp.

2. “The Department put the public on notice, through the proposed rule, of its intention to adopt the proposed [guidelines], with any changes made by the Board, as the accessibility standards. As a member of the Board and of its ADA Task Force, the Department participated actively in the public hearings held on the proposed guidelines and in preparation of both the proposed and final versions of [the guidelines.] ... [All] comments on the Department’s proposed rule ... have been addressed adequately in the final [guidelines]. Largely in response to comments, the Board made numerous changes from its proposal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 453 F. Supp. 2d 1193 - Miller v. California Speedway Corp.

3. “An agency is not allowed to change a legislative rule retroactively through the process of disingenuous interpretation of the rule to mean something other than its original meaning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration