Chevron Inc v. Echazabal’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
161 federal appellate · 41 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 453 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Barnhart Commissioner of Social Security v. Peabody Coal Co et al. (2003), Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authoity Police Department (2004)
161 federal appellate · 41 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 15 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
reviewedEchazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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. § 12113 (§ 103 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12116 (§ 106 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Mead Corp. · United States v. Vonn · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Dothard v. Rawlinson
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 453 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The direct threat defense must be 'based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,' and upon an expressly 'individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job[.]'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded”
7 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.