32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 - Montez v. Romer’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
18 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Garcia v. Suny Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn (2001), 38 F. Supp. 2d 91 - Sifre v. Department of Health (1999)
18 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (§ 203 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Only 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) explicitly addresses the issue [of suing individuals in their individual capacities], providing in employment actions against the federal government, that the ‘head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate shall be the defendant.’ [Citations omitted.] This statutory directive suggests that plaintiffs cannot assert [ADA and Rehabilitation Act] claims against individuals in their individual capacities.” Montez, 32 F. Supp. 2d at 1240 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . 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 . . . (Emphasis added.) 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reasons of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.