Cotter v. Ajilon Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.3d 593 · 2002
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. (2012), Donald v. Sybra, Inc. (2012)
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 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)
Relies on Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Bragdon v. Abbott · Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc. · Penny v. United Parcel Service
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) [has] a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) [has] a record of such an impairment; or (C) [is] regarded as having such an impairment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'substantially mirrors the ADA, and resolution of a plaintiff's ADA claim will generally, though not always, resolve the plaintiff's PWDCRA claim.'”
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.