Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 F.3d 229 - Windham v. Harris County

Windham v. Harris County’s Empirical Analysis

875 F.3d 229 · 2017

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
April 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (§ 203 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Graham v. Connor · Florida v. Royer

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

  1. “[a] critical component of a Title II claim for failure to accommodate[ ] ... is proof that [a] disability and its consequential limitations were known by the [entity providing public services.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To prevail on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must show '(1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was excessive to the need and that (3) the force used was objectively unreasonable.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To recover compensatory damages for disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must also show that the discrimination was 'intentional' in the sense that it was more than disparate impact.”
    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.