Stoutenborough v. National Football League, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 580 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (1997), Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp. (1998)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 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. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (§ 301 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 153 · 47 U.S.C. § 225
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Butler v. United States · Nishiyama v. Dickson County · Schnapper v. Foley
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“public accommodation” categories defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (7) and that “the prohibitions of Title III are restricted to 'places' of public accommodation” thereby disqualifying the National Football League, its member clubs, and the media defendants. Id. at 583 . The court also stated plaintiffs' argument that the prohibitions of Title III are not limited solely to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was discriminatory because they had no other way to access the game; for instance, they could not listen to it on the radio because of their hearing impairment. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It explained first, that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“many Courts across the nation have expressly held internet sites to be places of 'public accommodation.' " Pls.' Opp. at 16. Maybe so. But these courts were not interpreting the D.C. Human Rights Act. See Pls.' Opp. at 17 (discussing cases that interpreted Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (the "ADA”
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.