Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 F.2d 876 - DeVries ex rel. DeBlaay v. Fairfax County School Board

DeVries ex rel. DeBlaay v. Fairfax County School Board’s Empirical Analysis

882 F.2d 876 · 1989

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
May 2019
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 15 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Oberti v. Board Of Education (1993), Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board (1991)

19 federal appellate · 15 district ·

2701989199020002010decided

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. § 794

Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Traynor v. Turnage · Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove · Roncker ex rel. Roncker v. Walter

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

  1. “That special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mainstreaming of handicapped children into regular school programs ... is not only a laudable goal but is also a requirement of the Act.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n a case where the segregated facility is considered superior, the court should determine whether the services which make that placement superior could be feasibly provided in a non-segregated setting.”
    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.