Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1153 · 1986
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School District (1992), Wg v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School District No Missoula Montana (1992)
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Smith v. Robinson · McGee v. United States · Butler v. United States
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is, of course, a general standard, but it must be applied to the individual . . . in the same way that juries apply other general legal standards such as negligence and reasonableness.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The IDEA] “placets] primary responsibility for formulating handicapped children’s education in the hands of state and local school agencies in cooperation with each child’s parent.” In deference to this statutory scheme and the reliance it places on the expertise of local education authorities, ... [The IDEA] creates a “presumption in favor of the educational placement established by a [student’s IEP],” and “the party attacking its terms should bear the burden of showing why the educational setting established by the [IEP] is not appropriate.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]arents who elect to risk shouldering the costs of what they perceive to be a more appropriate placement,”
3 later decisions 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.