681 F. Supp. 2d 68 - Dave v. Lanier’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Rehabilitation Act ... is to be interpreted coterminously with the ADA.”); Zeigler v. Potter, 641 F.Supp.2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tyson v. Brennan
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.