Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 742 F.2d 257 - Smith v. United States Postal Service

Smith v. United States Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis

742 F.2d 257 · 1984

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
December 2016
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Taylor, Carolyn v. Small, Lawrence M. (2003), McGuinness v. United States Postal Service (1984)

56 federal appellate · 5 district ·

4001984199020002010decided

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 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 793 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D

Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Bates v. State Bar · Smith v. Robinson

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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[N]o otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive Agency or by the United States Postal Service. (Underlined portion added by the 1978 Amendments to the Act.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a)(1) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), including the application of sections 706(f) through 706(k) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) through (k)), shall be available with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place accommodation, and the availability of alternatives therefor or other appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate remedy. (2) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title [§ 501].” 29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1). In 1992, Congress further amended the Rehabilitation Act”
    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.