Watkins v. Ameripride Services’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.3d 821 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably 133 Cal. App. 4th 949 - Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005), 135 Cal. App. 4th 1215 - Raine v. City of Burbank (2006)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 49 U.S.C. § 13501
Relies on Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Levinson v. Spector Motor Service · Morris v. McComb · Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co. · 85 Cal. App. 4th 245 - Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]f a company places orders with an out-of-state vendor for delivery to specified intrastate customers, a temporary holding of the goods within an intrastate warehouse for processing does not alter the interstate character of the transportation chain culminating in delivery to the customer. If, on the other hand, a company places orders with an out-of-state vendor, with delivery to the company's intrastate warehouse for future delivery to customers yet to be identified, the transportation chain culminating in delivery to the customer is considered intrastate in nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) reasonable accommodation was offered and refused; (2) there simply was no vacant position within the employer’s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation; or (3) the employer did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation, but the informal interactive process broke down because the employee failed to engage in discussions in good faith.”
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.