Taylor v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
177 F.3d 180 · 1999
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Taylor v. Phoenixville School District (1999), Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authoity Police Department (2004)
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · Kelly v. Drexel University · Wooten v. Farmland Foods
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by the covered entity as constituting such limitation; (2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) Has [no such impairment] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) [ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) [significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 CFR § 1630.2 (j). See E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 438 (7th Cir.2000); Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic, Ltd., 133 F.3d 499, 506 (7th Cir.1998).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because [the plaintiff] can stand and walk for fifty minutes at a time, and can continue for longer periods if he takes a break every hour, he can carry out most regular activities that require standing and walking, even though he may not be able to perform [the employer’s] jobs without accommodation. We conclude that his ability to walk and stand is not significantly less than that of an average person.”
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.