Cordoves v. Miami-Dade County’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (§ 301 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 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. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Graham v. Connor · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“but the dog should be trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of the disabled person, which has been described as a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there are no federally-mandated animal training standards”
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.