Adams v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.3d 936 · 2008
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 30 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Moore v. Hartman (2009), Elliott v. United States Department of Agriculture (2010)
15 federal appellate · 30 district · 3 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 22 U.S.C. § 3901 (Department of State Special Agents Retirement Act of 1998) · 22 U.S.C. § 3905 · 29 U.S.C. § 705 · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell v. Wolfish · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'related to the limitation that rendered the person disabled,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen the major life activity under consideration is that of working, the statutory phrase “substantially limits” requires, at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs.... To be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, then, one must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular job of choice. If jobs utilizing an individual’s skills (but perhaps not his or her unique talents) are available, one is not precluded from a substantial class of jobs. Similarly, if a host of different types of jobs are available, one is not precluded from a broad range of jobs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the earlier version defined 'individual with handicaps' in the same way that the current version defines 'individual with a disability' ”). 2 . When the Curseen-Morris P & DC was targeted in the 2001 anthrax terrorist attack, plaintiff was transferred to another postal facility; after the facility re-opened, he was transferred back to the P & DC on December 27, 2003. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) 3 . Plaintiff also submitted additional excerpts from this deposition as Exhibit 61 to his Opposition. 4 . Although plaintiff repeatedly uses the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.