Doe v. Allee’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972)
Relies on Goss v. Lopez · Withrow v. Larkin · Davis, As Next Friend of Lashonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al. · Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz · 12 Cal. 3d 541 - Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Recognizing the risk that an accusing witness may suffer trauma if personally confronted by an alleged assailant at a hearing, [the USC I court observed] that mechanisms can readily be fashioned to 'provid[e] accused students with the opportunity to hear the evidence being presented against them without subjecting alleged victims to direct cross-examination by the accused.' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'the opportunity to question a witness and observe [their] demeanor while being questioned can be just as important to the trier of fact as it is to the accused.' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'Although [a college] must treat students fairly, it is not required to convert its classrooms into courtrooms.' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.