Jennings v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
715 F.2d 1036 · 1983
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2000 · most notably Alexander v. Choate (1985), Lane v. Pena Secretary of Transportation (1996)
9 federal appellate · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396C (§ 1904 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Harris v. McRae · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · University of Texas v. Camenisch · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof `or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the Secretary, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State agency administering or supervising the administration of the State plan approved under this subchapter, finds— 1) that the plan has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of section 1396a ...; or 2) that in the administration of the plan there is a failure to comply substantially with any such provision; the Secretary shall notify such State agency that further payments will not be made to the State (or, in his discretion, that payments will be limited to categories under or parts of the State plan affected by such failure), until the Secretary is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure to comply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 504 was patterned after and is almost identical to, the antidiscrimination language of section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 (relating to race, color, or national origin) and section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 1683 (relating to sex)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alexander v. Choate
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.