Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
544 F.3d 696 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. (2012), Whitfield v. Tennessee (2011)
8 federal appellate · 4 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 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Only disputed material facts, those 'that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,' will preclude summary judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the major life activity at issue is working, the statutory phrase “substantially limits” takes on a special meaning ... and imposes a stringent standard, requiring proof that the employer regarded the employee as 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.”
2 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.