Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.3d 231 - Davis v. Shah

Davis v. Shah’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.3d 231 · 2016

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (§ 204 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Auer v. Robbins · Gonzaga University v. Doe · Tommy Olmstead Commissioner Georgia Department of Human Resourcess v. L C Jonathan Zimring · Traynor v. Turnage

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A district court abuses its discretion when (1) its decision rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision-though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding-cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. Id. (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). We review questions of law de novo . See N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y. City Transit Auth. , 684 F.3d 286 , 294 (2d Cir. 2012). An injunction must "state its terms specifically”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he ADA and the Olmstead decision extend to persons at serious risk of institutionalization or segregation and are not limited to individuals currently in institutional or other segregated settings. Individuals need not wait until the harm of institutionalization or segregation occurs or is imminent. For example, a plaintiff could show sufficient risk of institutionalization to make out an Olm-stead violation if a public entity’s failure to provide community services or its cut to such services will likely cause a decline in health, safety or welfare that would lead to the individual’s eventual placement in an institution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.