Harris v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.3d 66 · 2009
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 27 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 532 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Hebbe v. Pliler (2010), Hayden v. Paterson (2010)
26 federal appellate · 27 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. § 794 · 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Erickson v. Pardus · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
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 532 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, although a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, and [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss and [d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) that the defendants are subject to [the relevant statute], and (3) that she was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from defendants' services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by reason of her disability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally”
2 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.