Fraser v. Goodale’s Empirical Analysis
342 F.3d 1032 · 2003
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 42 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably White v. BFI Waste Services, LLC (2004), Fonseca v. Sysco Food Services of Arizona, Inc. (2004)
30 federal appellate · 42 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 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 · Bragdon v. Abbott · Albertsons Inc v. Hallie Kirkingburg · Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the summary judgment stage, we do not focus on the admissibility of the evidence's form. We instead focus on the admissibility of its contents.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]o survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.” Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir.2001); Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004). 2 . In 1981, the Department of Labor released an Opinion Letter clarifying what it means to”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Fraser’s diabetes regimen is perpetual, severely restrictive, and highly demanding .... She must vigilantly monitor what and how much she eats. She must time her daily shots and meals so carefully that it is not safe for her to live alone. (She could end up in the ambulance if she took too long a nap between a shot and breakfast.) She must always have certain foods available in case her blood sugar drops or skyrockets .... She cannot put a morsel of food in her mouth without carefully assessing whether it will tip her blood sugars out of balance. She cannot skip or postpone a snack or meal without cautiously studying her insulin and glucagon levels. She must constantly, faithfully, and precisely monitor her eating, exercise, blood sugar, and other health factors, and even this is no guarantee of success.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.