Crowley v. Vilsack’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the [mere] imposition of a PIP-even one that does not result in a negative impact on salary, grade or performance appraisal-can constitute an adverse action.”
1 later decision 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.