Cushing v. Packard’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 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)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Kentucky v. Graham · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Pierson v. Ray · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
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.
“individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including . . . failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, . . . segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from [participating in all aspects of society] because of discrimination,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.