Doe v. Colautti’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.2d 704 · 1979
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 21 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Alexander v. Choate (1985), Rogers v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (1980)
24 federal appellate · 21 district · 5 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
Relies on Baker v. Carr · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Sosna v. Iowa · Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia · Weinstein v. Bradford
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 78 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others; (ii) Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others; (iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to handicapped persons or to any class of handicapped persons unless such action is necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rodriguez v. DeBuono“[T]he 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' doctrine is limited to the situation where two elements combine: (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”
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.