Crawford v. Pittman’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 1028 · 1983
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Town of Burlington v. Department of Education (1984), Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School District (1992)
26 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1232A · 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1413 · 20 U.S.C. § 1416 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · National League of Cities v. Usery · Fullilove v. Klutznick · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Congress finds that(9) it is in the national interest that the Federal Government assist State and local efforts to provide programs to meet the educational needs of handicapped children in order to assure equal protection of the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic substantive standard under the Act, then, is that each IEP must be formulated to provide some educational benefit to the child,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the Fifth Circuit has explained: Although the Act does not require handicapped children to be given the means “to achieve strict equality of opportunity or services” neither does it permit the state to furnish “handicapped children with only such services as are available to nonhandicapped children.” Implicit in the term “appropriate education” is “the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child.” _ The basic substantive standard under the Act, then, is that each IEP must be formulated to provide some educational benefit to that child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lelsz v. Kavanagh
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.