Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.3d 375 · 2002
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authoity Police Department (2004), Seachange International, Inc. v. C-COR Inc. (2005)
18 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 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. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Greer v. Miller · Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. · Taylor v. Phoenixville School District · Kelly v. Drexel University
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by the covered entity as constituting such limitation; (2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) Has [no such impairment] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“basically the same ... in relevant respects and 'Pennsylvania courts ... generally interpret the PHRA in accord with its federal counterparts.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“somehow disabled,” not that she was suffering from an impairment within the meaning of the statute. . The analysis of retaliation claims under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA are almost identical. The only difference is that instead of engaging in a”
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.