Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 F.3d 261 - Henrietta v. Bloomberg

Henrietta v. Bloomberg’s Empirical Analysis

331 F.3d 261 · 2003

Citation profile

238
cited by 238 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 28 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 238 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Harris v. Mills (2009), Iverson v. City of Boston (2006)

51 federal appellate · 28 district · 8 state decisions

1160200320102020decided

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

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Hafer v. Melo

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 238 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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 or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie violation under these Acts, she must demonstrate (1) that she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that the defendants are subject to one of the Acts; and (3) that she was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from defendants’ services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by reason of her disability.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there must be something different about the way the plaintiff is treated `by reason of ... disability.'”
    4 later decisions 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.