Kampmeier v. Nyquist’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 296 · 1977
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979), Lane v. Pena Secretary of Transportation (1996)
44 federal appellate · 10 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 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Sonesta International Hotels Corp. v. Wellington Associates · Triebwasser & Katz, a Partnership Consisting of Jonah Triebwasser and William Katz v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company · Lloyd v. Regional Transportation Authority
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in section 706(6) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The settled rule is that a preliminary injunction should issue only upon a clear showing of either (1) probable success on the merits and possible irreparable injury, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s we read § 504, however, exclusion of handicapped children from a school activity is not improper if there exists a substantial justification for the school's policy.”
1 later decision 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.