138 F. Supp. 2d 693 - Brashear v. Simms’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 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 Neitzke v. Williams · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Helling v. McKinney · Washington v. Harper · McGinnis v. Royster
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ommon sense compels the conclusion that smoking, whether denominated as "nicotine addition” [sic] or not, is not a "disability” within the meaning of the ADA. Congress could not possibly have intended the absurd result of including smoking within the definition of "disability,” which would render somewhere between 25% and 30% of the American public disabled under federal law because they smoke. In any event, both smoking and "nicotine addition” [sic] are readily remediable, either by quitting smoking outright through an act of willpower (albeit easier for some than others), or by use of such items as nicotine patches or nicotine chewing gun. If the smokers’ nicotine addiction is thus remediable, neither such addiction nor smoking itself qualifies as a disability within the coverage of the ADA, under well-settled Supreme Court precedent.”
1 later decision 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.