Spiegel v. Schulmann’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.3d 72 · 2010
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Singleton v. Wulff · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · Mitchum v. Foster
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district court's personal jurisdiction is determined by the law of the state in which the court is located.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“analysis [of NYCHRL provisions] must be targeted to understanding and fulfilling what the statute characterizes as the City HRL's 'uniquely broad and remedial’ purposes, which go beyond those of counterpart State or federal civil rights laws.” Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Williams v. N.Y. City Housing Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62, 66 , 872 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y.App.Div.2009), leave to appeal denied by 13 N.Y.3d 702 , 2009 WL 2622097 (2009)). Despite this,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This conclusion is arguably contrary to a literal reading of § 12203(a), where the phrase ‘[n]o person shall’ suggests the possibility of individual liability. Because we apply the remedies provided in Title VII to the anti-retaliation provision of the ADA, however, § 12203- presents that rare case in which a broader consideration of the ADA, in light of the remedial provisions of Title VII, indicates that this interpretation of the statutory language does not comport with Congress’s clearly expressed intent.”
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.