Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 F.3d 68 - Heyman v. Queens Village Committee for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc.

Heyman v. Queens Village Committee for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

198 F.3d 68 · 1999

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Giordano v. City of New York (2001), Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries (2000)

16 federal appellate · 12 district ·

820199920002010decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp. · Ryan v. Grae & Rybicki, P.C.

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

  1. “[Pjlaintiff bears the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of production then shifts to defendants, who must offer through the introduction of admissible evidence a non-discriminatory reason for their actions that, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not a cause of the disputed employment action. Plaintiff then must show that the proffered reason was merely a pretext for discrimination, which may be demonstrated either by the presentation of additional evidence showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence, or by reliance on the evidence comprising the prima facie case, without more.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(i) Unable 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.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.”
    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.