Ballard v. Rubin’s Empirical Analysis
284 F.3d 957 · 2002
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Faibisch v. University of Minnesota (2002), Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. (2008)
21 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
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 Wilson v. Garcia · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc. · Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools · Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide[ ] the employer with enough information that, under the circumstances, the employer can be fairly said to know of both the disability and desire for an accommodation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“make it clear to the employer that the employee wants assistance for his or her disability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, affirming the decision of the district court only if no genuine issue of material fact exists, entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. In considering whether summary judgment was appropriate, we view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in his favor.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peebles v. Potter
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.