Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
870 federal appellate · 837 district · 293 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,163 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (2001), Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002)
870 federal appellate · 837 district · 293 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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
reviewedSutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12116 (§ 106 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company
Cited together with Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Bragdon v. Abbott
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 4,163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”
195 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
118 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There 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.”
103 later decisions 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.