Kemp v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
610 F.3d 231 · 2010
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 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 · Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding · Rene Lemaire v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could enter a verdict for the non-moving party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
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.