Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.3d 667 · 1995
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 50 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. (1999), Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (1996)
65 federal appellate · 50 district · 6 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. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12201 (§ 501 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 5 U.S.C. § 8151
Relies on Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Withrow v. Williams · Sturman v. United States · Johnston v. Holiday Inns, 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even an issue raised in the complaint but ignored at summary judgment may be deemed waived.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) In general. The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individ ual with a disability holds or desires. The term “essential functions” does not include the marginal functions of the position. (2) A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but not limited to the following: (i) The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function; (ii) The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or (iii) The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. (3) Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”
3 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.