Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 1522 - Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta

Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 1522 · 1997

Citation profile

193
cited by 193 later decisions
6
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 193 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. (2001), Shotz v. City of Plantation (2003)

56 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions

9401997200020102020decided

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

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Connick v. Myers · Maine v. Thiboutot · Rankin v. McPherson

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

  1. “individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]n employer or other covered entity may restructure a job by reallocating or redistributing nonessential, marginal job functions .... An employer or other covered entity is not required to reallocate essential functions. The essential functions are by definition those that the individual who holds the job would have to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be considered qualified for the position.”
    2 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.