Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 76 · 2008
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 143 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan (2011), Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marín (2010)
16 federal appellate · 143 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.
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. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp. · Wooten v. Farmland Foods
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that she was 'disabled' within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation; and (3) that she was discharged or adversely affected, in whole or in part, because of her disability [(i.e., suffered an adverse employment action)].”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an error not of reasoning but apprehension.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here are two apparent ways in which individuals may fall within this statutory definition: (1) a covered entity mistakenly believes that a person has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or (2) a covered entity mistakenly believes that an actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. In both cases, it is necessary that a covered entity entertain misper-ceptions about the individual — it must believe either that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting. These misperceptions often resul[t] from ster-eotypic assumptions not truly indicative of ... individual ability.”
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.