Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 F.3d 749 - Watson v. Lighting

Watson v. Lighting’s Empirical Analysis

304 F.3d 749 · 2002

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Schiavone v. Fortune · Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. · Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp. · Bobbi Miller v. Illinois Department of Corrections

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

  1. “the ADA does not require an employer that sets aside a pool of positions for recovering employees to make those positions available indefinitely to an employee whose recovery has run its course without restoring that worker to her original healthy state. A person is “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of the ADA only if she can perform one of the regular jobs (with or without an accommodation).”
    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.