Clark v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 79 · 1986
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Leamer v. Fauver (2002), Helen v. L F F
25 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 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. § 1292 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Roe v. Wade · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the State should be required to provide such a person with at least as much training as would match the improvement that he or she would have experienced if never committed. The reasoning behind this position is analogous to the reasoning supporting the non-deterioration principle: by committing people and preventing them from developing self-care skills, the state is effectively depriving them of the opportunity to develop and exercise their autonomy. This is a deprivation of their due process right to liberty----[Thus,] involuntarily civilly committed persons have a right to treatment sufficient to develop their self-care skills to at least the level at which they would be if the persons had not been institutionalized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“For many mentally retarded people, the difference between the capacity to do things for themselves within an institution and total dependence on the institution for all of their needs is as much liberty as they ever will know.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[s]ection 504 prohibits discrimination against the handicapped in federally funded programs[,] [i]t imposes no affirmative obligations on the states to furnish services.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Helen L., Beverly D., Florence H., Ilene F., Idell S., and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today ("a.d.a.p.t."), Idell S. v. Albert L. Didario, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Norristown State Hospital, and Karen F. Snider, in Her Capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Karen F. Snider · Helen v. L F F
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.