Ruskai v. Pistole’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.3d 61 · 2014
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 49 U.S.C. § 114 · 49 U.S.C. § 44901 (Aviation Security Act of 2016) · 49 U.S.C. § 46110 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 6 U.S.C. § 203
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Whren v. United States · Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton · Alexander v. Choate · United States v. Knights
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the Supreme Court assumed that a disparate impact theory could apply in an action under Section 504 in some situations, the situation it identified was a case in which persons with disabilities were denied meaningful access to a government program or benefit. That exclusionary situation may fairly be described as the primary target of Section 504.... [Plaintiff] points to no case law adopting the view that any government conduct that affects a group that includes a disproportionate number of persons with a disability (e.g., a group of Medicare recipients, or hospital patients, or retirement resort residents, etc.) must be free from any unpleasant effects, such as dollar impact, waiting time, or lack of quality, unless those effects are fundamental or necessary to the government's program. And it is precisely this type of effect-neither connected to any denial of access nor motivated by discriminatory intent-that Alexander treats as outside the scope of Section 504's target.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“did not make a 10 After oral argument, the government filed a letter under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) attempting to raise for the first time an argument that we lack jurisdiction because Hernandez failed to exhaust her right to counsel claim before the BIA. Rule 28(j) enables a party to apprise the court of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving [f]ederal”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cushing v. Packard
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.