Peter v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. ““[T]he statute and its regulations do not require the State defendants or local school districts to provide on-site paraprofessional services to the plaintiffs at private schools as a component of their individualized education program. Because the court decides that there is no individual entitlement to services under the IDEA and its regulations for unilaterally-placed private school children with disabilities who require individualized services, the court need not address whether the Establishment Clause provides a justification for the denial of publicly funded on-site assistance. The court concludes that the defendants are entitled to partial summary judgment on the IDEA count.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krista Westendorp v. Robert Wedl · 18 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - PETER BY AND THROUGH PETER v. Wedl

2. ““Whereas the plaintiffs argue that the plain language of Minnesota Rule 3525.1150 and the school districts’ denial of services to Sarah Peter and Aaron Wes-tendorp violates the U.S. Constitution by allegedly discriminating in the provision of special education services on the basis of the religious content and viewpoint of a private school’s instructional programs, the plaintiffs accept defendants’ factual statements for purposes of their motion for partial summary judgment on the IDEA claim. Thus, for the purposes of this motion, the plaintiffs accept that the school districts deny on-site services to all children attending private schools, religious or nonreligious. Plaintiffs maintain that the IDEA and its regulations mandate that on-site special education services be provided at nonpublic schools to students whose special education needs are such that they require individualized paraprofessional services in their regular classrooms.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - PETER BY AND THROUGH PETER v. Wedl

3. ““In balancing the Dataphase factors, the court has considered the broad discretion that the state and local school districts have in providing educational services and defining educational policy.... The court concludes that even if the plaintiffs were to prevail on their constitutional and federal claims, it would be inclined to enjoin enforcement of the regulations and policies to reflect the policies to which the defendants urge they currently adhere: that defendants do not provide on-site paraprofessional services to any student voluntarily attending private school, regardless of the school’s religious or nonreligious nature. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - PETER BY AND THROUGH PETER v. Wedl