367 F. Supp. 2d 1278 - Rohm v. Homer’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. · Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc. · 18 Cal. 4th 640 - Reno v. Baird
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is a means to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint after an answer has been filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Surnow v. Buddemeyer
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.