Dellmuth v. Muth’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
122 federal appellate · 33 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 353 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989), Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr (2001)
122 federal appellate · 33 district · 6 state decisions
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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1411 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Hans v. State of Louisiana
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 353 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence of congressional intent must be both unequivocal and textual.... Legislative history generally will be irrelevant to a judicial inquiry into whether Congress intended to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of this chapter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he Act permits any party aggrieved by the findings and decision of the state administrative hearings “to bring a civil action” in “any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy.” § 1415(e)(2). The complaint, and therefore the civil action, may concern “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education of such child.” § 1415(b)(1)(E).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.