443 F. Supp. 2d 659 - Colon v. Colonial Intermediate Unit 20’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1414 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Section 504] prohibits discrimination against the disabled in federally funded programs. Specifically, the law provides: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 706(8) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability be excluded irom the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . .29 U.S.C, § 794(a). The IDEA and section 504 provide equivalent requirements. The IDEA provides an affirmative duty to provide education, whereas the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against the disabled. W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 492-93 (3d Cir.1995).”
1 later decision 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.