Lelsz v. Kavanagh’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2001
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Ingraham v. Wright · Hutto v. Finney
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The Secretary has failed to provide reasonably safe conditions of confinement for plaintiffs committed to the state psychiatric hospitals. 2. The plaintiffs have been subjected to unreasonable bodily restraints. 3. The Secretary has failed to provide the plaintiffs with minimally adequate habilitation that is reasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. 4. The Secretary has consistently failed to implement the recommendations of the state’s treating professionals. 5. In many instances, the treatment afforded to the plaintiffs was not the result of the exercise of professional judgment. 6. The Secretary’s decision to confine mentally retarded persons with no diagnosis of mental illness in state psychiatric hospitals is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice and standards as to demonstrate that the decision is not a function of independent professional judgment within the meaning of Youngberg . 7. The Secretary’s decision to place mentally retarded persons on general psychiatric wards is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice and standards as to demonstrate that the decision is not a function of independent professional judgment within the meaning of Youngberg . 8. The Secretary’s decision to seclude and mechanically restrain the plaintiffs without employing behavioral treatment programs is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, and standards as to demonstra”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“aversive procedures [including seclusion and physical restraints were] being inappropriately used with no evidence for their effectiveness and no relationship between the choice of the procedure and the analysis of the cause of the problem[,] . . . plac[ing] clients at extreme risk for maltreatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Surveyors examine whether policies and programs exist, not whether those policies or programs result in adequate care”
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.