Rannels v. Hargrove’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2011
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 6101 (Age Discrimination Act of 1975) · 42 U.S.C. § 6102
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Haines v. Kerner · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Hishon v. King & Spalding
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ADA was enacted as part of an omnibus bill, the Older Americans Amendments of 1975, intended primarily to benefit the elderly. Therefore, one could view the ADA as part of a market basket of aids to the elderly, and conclude that the legislative purpose was to prevent discrimination against them. This information, however, does not control the ambit of the statute. The speakers above did not state that the scope of the ADA was limited to discrimination against the elderly; rather, they merely emphasized that it would cover such discrimination. An intent to assist the elderly is not inconsistent with an intent to assist others. The ADA’s aegis is also not determinative, as omnibus bills inevitably carry many different passengers. Though Congress, or at least some members, may have been impelled to act by perceived discrimination against the elderly, it never evinced a desire to limit the ADA to remedying that problem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There remains only the question of whether the encouragement or toleration of the Club 50 program bears a rational relationship to that interest. The answer again must be yes. The effect of the program is to give a modest sum to older bank customers. This is no different in its effect than a tax break, or an increase in Social Security payments, or another form of subsidy. For this program to be stricken, many other programs favoring the old (or, indeed, the young) would have to be eliminated as well. That would run flatly against a long string of precedents upholding programs that assist the elderly.'” (Italics added; fn. and citations omitted.) ( 731 F.Supp. at p. 1226 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the reasons relied upon by the court need not be those actually relied upon by the actors or proffered by them post hoc; as long as the court can construct plausible reasons in support of the state action, the action must, under this standard, be upheld.”
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.