Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 F.3d 947 - Olson v. General Electric Astrospace

Olson v. General Electric Astrospace’s Empirical Analysis

101 F.3d 947 · 1996

Citation profile

230
cited by 230 later decisions
4
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

78 federal appellate · 48 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. (1997), Taylor v. Phoenixville School District (1999)

78 federal appellate · 48 district · 4 state decisions

12101996200020102020decided

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. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Fuentes v. Perskie · Gant v. United States · Barbara Sheridan v. Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Jacques Amblard · Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.

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

  1. “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.”
    3 later decisions 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.