Renee v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.3d 903 · 2009
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (Charter School Expansion Act of 1998) · 20 U.S.C. § 6319 · 20 U.S.C. § 7801 · 20 U.S.C. § 7910 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Bennett v. Spear · De Sylva v. Ballentine · Horne v. Flores
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] “highly qualified teacher” ... meets the requirements in paragraph (a) [and other paragraphs not relevant to this appeal]. (a) In general. (1)Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section [covering charter schools], a [“highly qualified”] teacher ... must— (1) Have obtained full State certification as a teacher, which may include certification obtained through alternative routes to certification; or (ii)(A) Have passed the State teacher licensing examination; and (B) Hold a license to teach in the State. (2) A teacher meets the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the teacher— (i) Has fulfilled the State’s certification and licensure requirements applicable to the years of experience the teacher possesses; or (ii) Is participating in an alternative route to certification program under which— (A) The teacher— (1) Receives high-quality professional development ...; (2) Participates in a program of intensive supervision ...; (3) Assumes functions as a teacher only for a specified period of time not to exceed three years; and (4) Demonstrates satisfactory progress toward full certification as prescribed by the State [.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Renee v. Duncan“Because it is undisputed that the interpretation of “full State certification” is a matter of state law and that, therefore, a state can essentially decide what constitutes a “highly qualified teacher,” it is unlikely that the revocation of the regulation will have a “coercive effect” upon California. Instead, appellants’ injury is likely the result of California’s independent action who is not before the court. Accordingly, appellants have failed to meet their burden of establishing redressability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public charter school law[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Renee v. Duncan
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.