Plummer v. Branstad’s Empirical Analysis
731 F.2d 574 · 1984
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Wagner ex rel. Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center (1995), Elstner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (1987)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Doe v. New York University · California v. Richard Shires Winson, Jr · Green v. Ohio · Keniston v. Roberts
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the plaintiff is a "handicapped individual" under the terms of the statute; (2) that the plaintiff is "otherwise qualified” to participate in the program or activity at issue; (3) that the plaintiff was excluded from the program or activity "solely by reason" of her or his handicap; and (4) that the program or activity receives federal financial assistance, or is conducted by an executive agency of the United States Postal Service.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The severity of Plaintiffs’ handicaps is itself a handicap which, under Section 504, cannot be the sole reason for denying plaintiffs access to community programs .... Defendants’ failure to accommodate the severely handicapped in existing community programs while serving less severely handicapped peers is unreasonable and discriminatory.”
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.