Steven Martin v. State of Kansas United States of America Colorado Cross Disability Coalition the Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.3d 1120 · 1999
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Atlantic Richfield Company v. The Farm Credit Bank of Wichita Stanley a Mollerstuen (2000), Davidson v. America Online, Inc. (2003)
33 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 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 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but not limited to the following: (i) The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function; (ii) The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or (iii) The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. (3) Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the State's assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court, the issue must be resolved before a court may address the merits of [the] underlying . . . claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] State shall not be immune under the [E]leventh [A]mendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.”
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.