In Re BS’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably In re Antony B. (1999), In re C. P. (2012)
36 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (§ 203 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Dade County v. Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n · Dade County v. Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n · Peretz v. United States · In Re KH · In Re MCP
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We further note that nothing in the ADA suggests that denial of [a termination proceeding] is an appropriate remedy for an ADA violation. Under analogous circumstances, other courts have refused to graft ADA requirements' onto unrelated statutes. This is not to say that the mother is without a remedy if [the state agency] has violated the ADA. The ADA provides for a private right of action for Title II violations, 42 U.S.C. § 12133 , and its regulations require public entities to adopt and publicize grievance procedures, 28 C.F.R. §" 35.107, and outline a federal complaint procedure, id. § 35.170. Pursuant to these provisions, the mother could have filed a complaint or brought a civil action to obtain relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Termination] proceedings are not 'services, programs or activities' within the meaning of Title II of the ADA [citation]. [Citations.] Thus, the anti-discrimination requirement does not directly apply to termination proceedings. Even if the ADA applied to [termination] proceedings, there is no specific discrimination against disabled persons in the [termination] process. Mental retardation is not, by itself, a ground for terminating parental rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re S.R. · In re S.R.
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.