279 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Haynes v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Bragdon v. Abbott
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 ADA requires those `claiming the Act's protection ... to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation ... in terms of their own experience ... is substantial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haynes v. Williams“reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haynes v. Williams“mistakenly believes that [the] person has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haynes v. Williams
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.