Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 F.3d 1439 - Gates v. Rowland

Gates v. Rowland’s Empirical Analysis

39 F.3d 1439 · 1994

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California (2001), Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. (1995)

70 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

8201994200020102020decided

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. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Hudson v. Palmer · Turner v. Safley · Procunier v. Martinez · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Shaw v. Barr

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

  1. “[t]he Act was not designed to deal specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general societal application. There is no indication that Congress intended the Act to apply to prison facilities irrespective of the reasonable requirements of effective prison administration.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “how the Act is to be applied in a prison setting,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “). Section 504 provides, in pertinent part: 12 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.... 13 See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). To prove a section 504 violation, the plaintiffs must show (1) that the Residents have a disability; (2) that they were”
    3 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.