Christopher Duvall v. County of Kitsap a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 34 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Garcia v. Suny Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn (2001), Lovell v. Chandler (2002)
8 federal appellate · 34 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 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (§ 203 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · City of Canton v. Harris · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown · Alexander v. Sandoval · Board of Trustees of the University of Alabamas v. Patricia Garrett
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]eliberate indifference is "knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood." The "knowledge" element is satisfied where the public entity has notice of the plaintiff's accommodation need, and the "failure to act" element is satisfied by conduct that is "more than negligent, and involves an element of deliberateness."”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“'ll) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.