Easley v. Snider’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.3d 297 · 1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Does 1 v. Chandler (1996), Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico (2000)
9 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 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 20 U.S.C. § 107 (Randolph-Sheppard Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Southeastern Community College v. Davis · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Alexander v. Choate · Traynor v. Turnage · United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 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.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The test to determine the reasonableness of a modification is whether it alters the essential nature of the program or imposes an undue burden or hardship in light of the overall program.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Helen L., Beverly D., Florence H., Ilene F., Idell S., and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today ("a.d.a.p.t."), Idell S. v. Albert L. Didario, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Norristown State Hospital, and Karen F. Snider, in Her Capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Karen F. Snider · 946 F. Supp. 1373 - Heather K. by Anita K. v. City of Mallard, Iowa“better control their lives and reach maximum independence when they are able to direct their own personal care and manage their home, business, and social lives. Attendant [c]are in Pennsylvania continues to be seen as part of the wider independent living movement whose fundamental goals are to enable the physically disabled to: a) maintain a less restrictive and/or independent living arrangement; b) maintain employment; and/or c) remain in their homes.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Helen L. v. DiDario · Helen L., Beverly D., Florence H., Ilene F., Idell S., and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today ("a.d.a.p.t."), Idell S. v. Albert L. Didario, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Norristown State Hospital, and Karen F. Snider, in Her Capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Karen F. Snider
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.