Glanz v. Vernick’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Thompson (1992), Moreno v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1996)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 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. § 1988
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Kahn v. Grant · In re Martin-Trigona · Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of City of New York · Robertson v. Wegmann
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, ... be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.... * * * * * * (b) For purposes of this section, the term “program or activity” means all of the operations of— (3) (A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or as an entire sole proprietorship— ‡ * H* * * H« (ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is quite unlikely ... that Congress intended § 504 to provide a windfall to plaintiffs in the form of punitive damages”
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.