Buskirk v. Apollo Metals’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.3d 160 · 2002
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 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 · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander · US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett · City of Los Angeles v. Department of Transportation
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined by the ADA as a person “with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (8). A “disability” is defined as: “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[ve] a physical or mental impairment that does, not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by a covered entity as constituting such limitation; Ha[ve] a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitude of others toward such impairment; or Ha[ve] none of the impairments [covered by the ADA] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the existence of a contractual ... relation between the [plaintiff] and a third party; (2) purposeful action on the part of the defendant, specifically intended to harm the existing relation ...; (3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant; and (4) the occasioning of actual legal damage as a result of the defendant’s conduct.”
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.