Miller v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “It is unlawful public accommodations discrimination, in violation of this Act: 1. Denial of Public Accommodations. For any public accommodation or any person who is the owner, lessor, lessee, proprietor, operator, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation to directly or indirectly refuse, discriminate against or in any manner withhold from or deny the full and equal enjoyment to any person, on account of race or color, sex, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry or national origin, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, services or privileges of pub-lie accommodation, or in any manner discriminate against any person in the price, terms or conditions upon which access to accommodation, advantages, facilities, goods, services and privileges may depend. For purposes of this subsection, unlawful discrimination also includes, but is not limited to: E. A qualified individual with a disability, by reason of that disability, being excluded from participation in or being denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or being subjected to discrimination by any such entity[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Androscoggin County Jail

2. “Nothing in this opinion should be read as creating a “right of transfer” to a particular prison under the ‘ADA. Rather, prison authorities still maintain a great deal of discretion in running their penal institutions, and such discretion normally outweighs any interest that any individual prisoner may have in remaining housed in a particular prison. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 , 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1745 , 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (prisoners have no right to be incarcerated in any particular prison within a state); Ellard v. Alabama Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 824 F.2d 937, 941-42 (11th Cir.1987). However, in the context of the ADA, a prisoner’s trans fer from or to a particular prison may become relevant when prison officials attempt to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” accommodation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 623 F. App'x 990 - Daniel R. Lonergan v. Florida Department of Corrections

3. “Supervisory liability under § 1983 occurs only when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged unconstitutional conduct or when there is a causal connection between the actions of a supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. A causal connection may be established: (1) when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so; (2) when a supervisor’s custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights; or (3) when facts support an inference that the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Orville L. Young v. John Fleming