Mack v. Great Dane Trailers’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.3d 776 · 2002
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company · Troupe v. May Department Stores Co. · Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the condition that is the subject of the employer's belief is not substantially limiting, and the employer does not believe that it is, then there is no violation of the ADA under the `regarded as' prong of the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We see no basis for confining Toyota 's analysis to only those cases involving the specific life activity [of performing manual tasks].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“attempt[ed] to shorten the relevant time lapse by asserting that he 'was fired on the very day his employer discovered the fact that [the plaintiff] was going to end his worker's compensation claim'-that is, when [the defendant] received [the physician's] report suggesting that [the plaintiff's] injury would not likely improve and that his work limitations would be permanent ....”
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.