Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 FSUPP 808 - Love v. McBride

Love v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
February 2010
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2010

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80199520002010decided

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

Relies on Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co. · McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority · Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corp. · Allison v. Ticor Title Insurance · Scaggs v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

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

  1. “WCC knew that it was not providing Mr. Love full access to services, programs, and activities, knew that Mr. Love’s disability was the reason he was not receiving full access to those programs, knew that Mr. Love repeatedly requested access, knew that WCC had a legal duty to provide Mr. Love with reasonable access, and knew that Mr. Love had a right to reasonable access. WCC may not have known that the access they were affording Mr. Love was unreasonable, but ... WCC voluntarily and deliberately denied Mr. Love’s requests for greater access to the programs, and did so because of this known disability, not because of mistake, accident, negligence, or another innocent reason. Mr. Love was not required to prove anything more to establish that the discrimination (a separate issue) was intentional.”
    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.