Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 F.3d 788 - Silk v. City of Chicago

Silk v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis

194 F.3d 788 · 1999

Citation profile

232
cited by 232 later decisions
1
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

98 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. (2001), Shotz v. City of Plantation (2003)

98 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

17801999200020102020decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson

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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`with respect to [the employee's] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.' 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The cases paraphrase this requirement either as `a tangible employment action,' that is, `a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,' or as a `materially adverse employment action.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) [h]as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) has a record of such impairment; or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment.”
    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.