Ellis v. England’s Empirical Analysis
432 F.3d 1321 · 2005
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Laber v. Harvey (2006), Ramirez v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (2012)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Chandler v. Roudebush · Mize v. Jefferson City Board of Education · Doe v. Dekalb County School District · Turnes v. Bank Na
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Genuine disputes are those in which the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“appropriateness” claims (like Plaintiff's) are not cognizable under either the Rehabilitation Act or the IDEA, but instead, are within the exclusive purview of the IDEA. The court need not decide the propriety of Plaintiff asserting these claims here, however, In any event, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the section 504 claim for other reasons. . The standard for liability under the Reha- ■ bilitation Act is the same as that under the Americans' with Disabilities Act (”
2 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.