Menkowitz Md’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Clark v. Columbia/HCA Information Services, Inc. (2001), 118 F. Supp. 2d 494 - Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (2000)
17 district · 2 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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Bragdon v. Abbott
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is evident that Congress sought to regulate disability discrimination in the area of employment exclusively through Title I”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) The imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges advantages, or accommodation being offered. (ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. (iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he operative rule announced in Title III speaks not in terms of `guests,' `patrons,' `clients,' `customers,' or `members of the public,' but instead broadly uses the word `individuals.'”
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.