Longoria v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Quern v. Jordan · Hutto v. Finney · Maine v. Thiboutot
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he implication of a damage remedy would portend a potentially massive financial liability upon recipients of federal funds_ This exposure could serve as a significant disincentive to the solicitation or acceptance of federal financial assistance, and hence a significant deterrent to the promotion and expansion of opportunities for handicapped individuals....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he term “handicapped individual" means ... any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (ii) has a record of such impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”
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.