Doe v. Anrig’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.2d 800 · 1982
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2003 · most notably Roland M. v. Concord School Committee (1990), Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico (2003)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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. § 1415
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Miener v. State · Ezratty v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · Anderson v. Thompson · Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[djuring the pendency of any proceedings . .. unless the State or local educational agency and the parents or guardian oth-, erwise agree, the child shall remain in the current educational placement of such child, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents or guardian, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““... when a court subsequently determines that the services in dispute were necessary to protect the physical health of the child and also were services that should have been provided by the school district, the district court has the statutory authority to recompense parents for the costs of those services the school district failed to provide. A second exceptional circumstance would exist when the defendant has acted in bad faith by failing to comply with the procedural provisions of section 615 in an egregious fashion.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[stay put provision] is designed to preserve the status quo pending resolution of administrative and judicial proceedings under the Act.'”
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.