Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 F.3d 158 - Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine

Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine’s Empirical Analysis

469 F.3d 158 · 2006

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 78 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Pearson v. Callahan (2009), Maldonado v. Fontanes (2009)

27 federal appellate · 78 district · 1 state decisions

790200620102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Maine District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Anderson v. Creighton · Payton v. New York · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.

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

  1. “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiffs disability.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A court must] determine ..., on a claim-by-claim basis, (1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title II but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
    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.