Chaffin’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Miller v. King, Sanders ex rel. Rayl v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services (2004)
13 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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although States are generally immune from suit brought by private individuals, there are three well-established exceptions to the bar. First, the States may consent to suit, waiving immunity. Second, Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Finally, under the doctrine announced in Ex Parte Young, an individual seeking only prospective injunctive relief for ongoing violations of federal law may bring suit against state officials in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Title II's emphasis on `program accessibility' rather than `facilities accessibility' was intended to ensure broad access to public services, while, at the same time, providing public entities with the flexibility to choose how best to make access available.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The County contends that because both [plaintiffs] were able to attend the trial, they have not alleged a violation of Title II. A violation of Title II, however, does not occur only when a disabled person is completely prevented from enjoying a service, program, or activity. The regulations specifically require that services, programs, and activities be “readily accessible.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 . If the Courthouse’s wheelchair ramps are so steep that they impede a disabled person or if its bathrooms are unfit for the use of a disabled person, then it cannot be said that the trial is “readily accessible,” regardless whether the disabled person manages in some fashion to attend the trial. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged a set of facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of Title II.”
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.