Zeigler v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
20 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 705 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Bragdon v. Abbott · Albertsons Inc v. Hallie Kirkingburg · Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In general, a court will grant a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order only when the movant demonstrates: '(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the first order.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no significant impact on his major life activities.” Id. at 17 . The court concluded on the basis of this letter that plaintiff did not meet the definition of disability and was therefore not entitled to a reasonable accommodation, and dismissed the claim. Id. Plaintiff moved to reconsider, and, in denying the motion, the court clarified that the psychologist”
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.