Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 F. Supp. 2d 22 - Hatch v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.

485 F. Supp. 2d 22 - Hatch v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
February 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 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. § 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 Conley v. Gibson · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Monge v. California

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.

  1. “Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case. Our inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and “the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” ... The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.”
    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.