Florence County School District Four v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
346 federal appellate · 297 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,409 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy (2006), Forest Grove School District v. T. A. (2009)
346 federal appellate · 297 district · 41 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
reviewedCarter ex rel. Carter v. Florence County School District Four (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free School District · Carter ex rel. Carter v. Florence County School District Four
Cited together with Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Honig v. Doe · Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast · Forest Grove School District v. T. A.
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 1,409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no doubt that Congress has imposed a significant financial burden on States and school districts that participate in IDEA. Yet public educational authorities who want to avoid reimbursing parents for the private education of a disabled child can do one of two things: give the child a free appropriate public education in a public setting, or place the child in an appropriate private setting of the State’s choice. This is IDEA’S mandate, and school officials who conform to it need not worry about reimbursement claims.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unilaterally change their child's placement during the pendency of review proceedings, without the consent of state or local school officials, do so at their own financial risk.”
11 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.