Lewis v. Truitt’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2018
4 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Vitug v. Multistate Tax Commission · 857 F. Supp. 800 - Tyler v. City of Manhattan · 910 F. Supp. 790 - Barber v. Guay · 925 F. Supp. 653 - Gorman v. Bartch
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to comply with the non-discrimination mandate, it is often necessary to provide training to public employees about disability. For example, persons who have epilepsy, and a variety of other disabilities, are frequently inappropriately arrested and jailed because police officers have not received proper training in the recognition of and aid of seizures. Such discriminatory treatment based on disability can be avoided by proper training.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Plaintiff Charles Lewis lived at 117 South 14th Street in Richmond, Indiana. David Lewis was at this address with family and friends mourning the death of Jacqueline Weaver during the late afternoon of August 13, 1994. Also present at the home were Plaintiff Daniel Lewis, Jennifer Leedy (“Leedy”), Stacey Sneed (“Sneed”), Christopher Anderson and others. While this gathering was taking place, Defendants Truitt, McClure, and Retherford, all Richmond city police officers, arrived at Charles Lewis’ home. The officers came to the address in order to take Amanda Lewis to police headquarters where an agent of Child Protective Services would be contacted to make a custody placement determination. Earlier that day, Amanda’s maternal grandmother had contacted the Richmond City Police Department and requested that custody of Amanda be given to her. The officers had not obtained a court order or a warrant prior to arriving at Charles Lewis’ home. They had made no independent determination that Amanda was in need of services and made no effort to contact Detective Jon Carrico regarding the child’s well-being. Shortly after the officers arrived, they were met outside the home by Leedy, Sneed, and David and Charles Lewis. The officers explained the situation to David Lewis, who decided to cooperate with them. He told them that he would go inside and get Amanda and would accompany them to the police department. During this time, Charles Lewis expressed his belief that David should not comply”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.