Weigel v. Target Stores’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 461 · 1997
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co. (1997), DeWalt v. Carter (2000)
80 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
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 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Henderson v. Brown · Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc. · Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. · Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen employees (and/or their physicians) represent that they are 'totally disabled,' 'wholly unable to work,' or some other variant to the same effect, employers and factfinders are entitled to take them at their word.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [he] was disabled; (2)[his] work performance met [Ford’s] legitimate expectations; (3)[he] was terminated; and (4) the circumstances surrounding [his] termination indicate that it is more likely than not that [his] disability was the reason for the termination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process, and his 'naked opinion' does not preclude summary judgment.”
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.