871 F. Supp. 40 - Modderno v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 5 U.S.C. § 8901 (Federal Employees Benefits Improvement Act of 1986)
Relies on Alexander v. Choate · Traynor v. Turnage · Pesterfield v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Doe v. Colautti · Doe v. Devine
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o establish a prima facie case under § 504, a person must be handicapped under the Act, otherwise qualified to receive or participate in the federally supported benefit or program, and excluded from the benefit solely by reason of her or his handicap.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under the Americans with Disabilities Act (”
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.