In Re Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2007 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1981)
6 federal appellate · 28 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
Relies on Schmidt v. Lessard · Lessard v. Schmidt · Wyatt v. Aderholt · Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital · 357 F. Supp. 752 - New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The concept of normalization envisions that the mentally retarded person and his or her family shall have the right to live a life as close as possible to that which is typical for the general population. Consistent with this concept is the requirement that the least restriction consistent with adequate treatment and required care shall be employed.” Id. at 96 , 429 A.2d at 636 . (empha sis added) The state regulations also address normalization and require that counties which administer mental retardation services be responsible for “maximum normalization of mentally retarded citizens.” 55 Pa. Code §6201.11 . 11”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is evident that ... the Act was intended to separate and yet coordinate State-county responsibilities to insure the availability of adequate mental retardation services for all of the residents of the States in need of such services. The State, through the [Welfare] Department, was given the responsibility for the overall supervision and control of the program. [Sections of the Act] impose the duty and grant the authority to ensure adequate services for the mentally retarded. [Under the Act] the State has the obligation to provide adequate mental health services and the Department is charged with the duty to implement that obligation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“envisions ‘a comprehensive cooperative State-county (or multi-county) program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of persons who are . . . mentally retarded .... The State, through the Department of Welfare, is responsible for the overall supervision and control of the program to assure the availability of and equitable provisions for adequate ... mental retardation facilities, and the counties, separately or in concert, are assigned responsibilities as to particular programs.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.