Ball v. Rodgers’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.3d 1094 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Snellenberger (2008), Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Shewry (2008)
12 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1232G (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1315 (§ 1115 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bell v. Hood · Cort v. Ash · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “Congress intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff’; (2) the plaintiff has “demonstrated that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so ‘vague and amorphous’ that its enforcement would strain judicial competence”; and (3) “the statute unambiguously imposes a binding obligation on the States,” such that “the provision giving rise to the asserted right is couched in mandatory, rather than precatory terms.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A State plan for medical assistance must ... provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the plan ... as may be necessary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]uch individuals who are determined to be likely to require the level of care provided in a hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded are informed of the feasible alternatives, if available under the waiver, at the choice of such individuals, to the provision of inpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, or services in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.”
4 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.