Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital’s Empirical Analysis
673 F.2d 647 · 1982
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Lashawn A. v. Barry (1996)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus it is quite plain that the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to the prospective injunctive relief which was ordered by the district court insofar as that relief is predicated on constitutional or federal statutory claims”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adequate support for [the order] independent of federal law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Schmidt court made clear that the Pennsylvania law imposed the obligation on both levels of government to provide habilitation in that environment providing the least restriction on personal liberty consistent with habilitation. Insofar as financial burdens are concerned, it merely referred to Sections 508 and 509 of the MH/MR Act of 1966, which impose funding duties on both levels of government, and which provide mechanisms for the allocation of appropriated funds among the counties. The Commonwealth was ordered to find a placement for Schmidt in an institution with a staff-patient ratio suitable to his needs. There is no suggestion in the Schmidt opinion that this order would be qualified by the necessity for appropriations. Obviously the Schmidt court anticipated that the adjustment mechanisms of Sections 508 and 509 would be operated in good faith. Nothing in the record which is before us on this appeal suggests that those mechanisms will be dismantled, will be operated other than in good faith, or are inhibited by the provisions of this judgment. On the record we, like the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, must assume that the Pennsylvania legislature intends compliance with its statutes.”
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.