Ezratty v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 770 · 1981
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 74 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Roland M. v. Concord School Committee (1990), Fernandez v. Chardon (1982)
82 federal appellate · 74 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
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1413 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 20 U.S.C. § 1416 · 38 U.S.C. § 2022
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · McKart v. United States · Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Florida Nursing Home Ass'n · McGee v. United States
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It allows the agency to develop a factual record, to apply its expertise to a problem, to exercise its discretion, and to correct its own mistakes, all before a court will intervene. Insofar as specialized administrative understanding is important, the doctrine thereby promotes accurate results, not only at the agency level, but also by allowing more informed judicial review. By limiting judicial interruption of agency proceedings, the doctrine can encourage expeditious decision making. Insofar as Congress has provided that an agency will decide a matter in the first instance, to apply the doctrine normally furthers specific Congressional intent. And, as a general matter, the doctrine promotes a sensible division of tasks between the agency and the court: litigants are discouraged from weakening the position of the agency by flouting its processes, while court resources are reserved for dealing primarily with those matters which could not be resolved administratively. Thus, the doctrine serves interests of accuracy, efficiency, agency autonomy and judicial economy.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]urther agency proceedings may be futile, only delaying an ultimate resolution,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The underlying issue ... whether the Department offered [plaintiff] the educational program to which she was entitled is a matter that calls out for resolution initially at the agency level. Working out a specific and final IEP ... calls for expertise and discretion; and, an initial independent review of the IEP at an agency level would serve the major purposes of the exhaustion doctrine. Indeed, Congress specifically mandated such a review in 20 U.S.C. § 1415 ; and, a review of the cases shows that it has helped to clarify issues even when it has not resolved them.”
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.