Marks v. Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.3d 619 · 2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2023
1 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland · Lance v. Dennis
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In actuality, Marks’s claim to the district court (and to this court on appeal) is that, as a qualified individual with a disability, he is entitled to reasonable accommodation, and, in this case, a reasonable accommodation would be to allow him to stay the court proceedings by faxing [a request for modification] to the [Administrative Office of the Courts] (rather than moving the court for a continuance vi a an actual appearance or a filing at the courthouse) and to maintain that stay until his treating physicians had given him a medical release to proceed. Marks does not claim that he was injured by the court’s rulings on the continuances (nor could he, inasmuch as the court granted every continuance), but instead claims that he was injured by: (1) his having to file the continuances (rather than the faxes) at all and to engage in this dispute with the court and the [Administrative Office] about this accommodation while in his weakened and disabled condition; (2) the court’s and the [Administrative Officers refusal to stay the proceedings (indefinitely) pending his doctor’s release (i.e., their refusal to grant him his preferred “reasonable accommodation”); and (3) the court’s and the [Administrative Officers failure to post the ADA signs in the court house, as required by the ADA. As a remedy, Marks seeks damages, based on his pain and suffering from these three alleged harms.”
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.