Ralph v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.3d 166 · 1998
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. (1999), Quint v. Ae Staley Manufacturing Company M (1999)
17 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Livadas v. Bradshaw · Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris · Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc. · Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools · Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he duty to provide reasonable accommodation is a continuing one . . . and not exhausted by one effort.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A federal court must find a cognizable threat of irreparable harm as an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the only impact on Lucent's ERISA plan is the extension of time to make application for certain benefits. No variation in the terms of benefits or their application is implicated.”
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.