Perdue v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 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) · 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)
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez · Yaffe v. Powers · Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford · Kim Michael Hainze et al. v. Ed Richards Steve Allison
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following facts are alleged in Per-due's complaint. Perdue is an adult resident of Madison County. Perdue suffers from nerve damage in both of her ears, for which she has been prescribed hearing aids; arthritis in both of her hips; emphysema; routine migraine headaches; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; severe depression; and bipolar disorder. Perdue has difficulty understanding her surroundings. She has difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, and comprehending what people tell her or what she receives in writing. In December 2007, Perdue was enrolled in both the Food Stamp and Medicaid for the Disabled programs and had been for three or four years. In December 2007, Perdue received notice from the FSSA indicating that she was required to be certified for these programs and that she was required to participate in a telephonic interview. During this telephonic interview, Perdue had difficulty hearing what the interviewer was saying over the telephone. Perdue allegedly asked to schedule an in-person interview but was told she could not. Perdue understood from her interview that she was required to provide the FSSA with certain documents for purposes of demonstrating her eligibility for these programs. Perdue traveled to the FSSA Help Center in Anderson and requested assistance in preparing the documents but was refused assistance. Perdue submitted certain documents in an attempt to comply with the FSSA's requirements. In January of 2008, Perdue received a letter from the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perdue v. Murphy“counties, there would no longer be an individually-assigned caseworker. 3 Instead, there was a regional service center where certain types of applications might be taken or address changes might be made. In some regions, the service centers included a call center and a document imaging center (where documents sent by applicants or recipients could be scanned and”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perdue v. Murphy“[nlo otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perdue v. Murphy
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.