41 F. Supp. 2d 587 - Farmer v. Ramsay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “(a) In general Except as otherwise provided for in this title (or an amendment made by this title), an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance, including credits, subsidies, or contracts of insurance, or under any program or activity that is administered by an Executive Agency or any entity established under this title (or amendments). The enforcement mechanisms provided for and available under such title VI, title IX, section 504, or such Age Discrimination A.ct shall apply for purposes of violations of this subsection. (b) Continued application of laws Nothing in this title (or an amendment made by this title) shall be construed to invalidate or limit the rights, remedies, procedures, or legal standards available to individuals aggrieved under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794),”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 95 F. Supp. 2d 723 - Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol · 137 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Callum v. CVS Health Corp.

2. “the proper defendant in a Title VI case is an entity rather than an individual”). In response, Plaintiff states he did not assert a Title VI claim against the Above-Store Defendants and Store-Level Defendants, all of whom are individuals. ECF No. 30-1 at 6. . 42 U.S.C. § 18001 , etseq. . In his response to the Store-Level Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff states, “Count VI (ACA § 1557) was not asserted against the individual defendants.” ECF No. 30-1 at 8-9. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing that Plaintiff has brought ¿ Section 1557 claim only against the Corporate Defendants, not against the individual Above-Store or Store-Level Defendants. Transcript at 48. . The Rumble court issued its .decision on March 16, 2015, noting, "To the [c]ourt’s knowledge, this is the first case that requires interpretation of Section 1557.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 137 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Callum v. CVS Health Corp.