69 F. Supp. 2d 868 - Morris v. Dearborne’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · County of Sacramento v. Lewis
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plaintiffs have shown the existence of an immediate and definite governmental action or policy that has adversely affected their interests in the past and continues to affect a present interest, there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If plaintiff has proved a constitutional violation, the court should consider whether plaintiff has demonstrated both the presence of a continuing irreparable injury and the lack of an adequate remedy at law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the context of a suit in which plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief from a constitutional violation, the court should first consider whether plaintiff has established the fact of a violation.”
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.