Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (§ 204 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey · John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California · McGary v. City of Portland · United States v. Thrasher · Armstrong
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants cannot avoid ADA and Section 504 liability by delegating responsibility for their delivery of programs, services and activities, or for the facilities in which they provide these programs, to the CDC or any other entity. The implementing regulations of both the ADA and Section 504 prohibit covered entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.” The BPT is thus legally obliged to ensure non-discrimination wherever programs, services or activities are provided to Plaintiff class members. Additionally, the BPT cannot avoid liability for violations of the physical accessibility standards by holding its programs in locations under the control of other entities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Armstrong v. Brown“Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall report to Plaintiffs’ counsel which housing units in Alameda, Sacramento and Los Angeles County Jail facilities are wheelchair accessible and how Defendants ensure that class members at those institutions who are designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible facilities and receive necessary accommodations and assistive devices in both their housing units and at their hearings. Within ninety days of this order, Defendants shall do the same with the remaining county jails. A necessary component of both reports is how Defendants track class members who are housed in county facilities due to parole holds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Armstrong v. Brown
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.