Developmental Disabilities Advocacy Center, Inc. v. Melton’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.2d 281 · 1982
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Roy v. City of Augusta (1983), Haitian Refugee Center v. Gracey (1987)
24 federal appellate · 11 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 Conley v. Gibson · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Bell v. Hood · Singleton v. Wulff
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e) Infants or Incompetent Persons. Whenever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person. If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, on a motion . . . to dismiss for failure . . . to state a claim . . . matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In order for a State to receive an allotment under subchapter II of this chapter— (1) the State must have in effect a system to protect and advocate the rights of persons with developmental disabilities; (2) such system must— (A) have authority to— (i) pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of such persons within the State who are or who may be eligible for treatment, services, or habilitation, or who are being considered for change in living arrangements, with particular attention to members of minority groups; and (ii) provide information on and referral to programs and services addressing the needs of persons with developmental disabilities; (B) have the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of persons with developmental disabilities if the incidents are reported to the system or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred; (C) on an annual basis, provide the public with an opportunity to comment on priorities established by, and activities of, the system; (D) establish a grievance procedure for clients or prospective clients of the system to assure that persons with developmental disabilities have full access to services of the system; ... (G) have access to all records of— (i) any person with developmental disabilities who is a client of the system if such person, or the legal guardian, conservator, or other legal representative of suc”
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.