Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 F.3d 916 - James Costello

James Costello’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
April 2024
most recently cited

5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2024

5 district ·

110200020102020decided

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 City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Collins v. City of Harker Heights · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Village of Willowbrook v. Olech · Florence County School District Four v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter

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

  1. “There are two apparent ways in which individuals may fall within this statutory definition: (1) a covered entity mistakenly believes that a person has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or (2) a covered entity mistakenly believes that an actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. In both cases, it is necessary that a covered entity entertain misper-ceptions about the individual — it must believe either that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, [the teacher] clearly used inappropriate language in his elementary classroom, and while we are appalled at his demeaning and belittling references to his students, his use of patently offensive language did not violate his students’ constitutional rights. Verbal abuse is normally not a constitutional violation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.