Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
548 U.S. 291 · 2006
Citation profile
222 federal appellate · 132 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 715 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Forest Grove School District v. T. A. (2009), Winkelman Ex Rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007)
222 federal appellate · 132 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 31 U.S.C. § 731 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Blum v. Stenson · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley
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 715 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e must view the [Medicaid statute] from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept [Medicaid] funds and the obligations that go with those funds.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is generally presumed that statutes do not contain surplusage”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In considering [what a statute means], we begin with the text. We have “stat ed time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” When the statutory “language is plain, the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd— is to enforce it according to its terms.””
9 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.