52 F. Supp. 2d 231 - Rolland v. Cellucci’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396N (§ 1915 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1919 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Sierra Club v. Morton · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requirement derives from a desire to focus accountability for plan operation. (Citations omitted.) {¶ 126} In Sobky v. Smoley (E.D.Cal. 1994), 855 F.Supp. 1123 , 1145 , the court wrote,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“quell overutilization of nursing home care for those who are not in need of institutionalization.”
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.