Williams v. Widnall’s Empirical Analysis
79 F.3d 1003 · 1996
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. (1997), King v. Preferred Technical Group (1999)
38 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc. · Indelicato v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adopt an interpretation of the [Rehabilitation Act] which would require an employer to accept egregious behavior by [a disabled employee] when that same behavior, exhibited by a nondisabled employee, would require termination.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As establishment of element (3), i.e. whether a § 501 plaintiff must show that his disability was the cause or a cause of termination is not necessary to the resolution of this case, we leave that issue to another day.”); Leary v. Dalton, 58 F.3d 748 , 752 (1st Cir.1995) (“Not only is it unclear whether the right of action under § 504 overlaps with that in § 501, it is also unclear, in light of recent amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, whether the two sections require the same showing of causation.”); Florence v. Runyon, 990 F.Supp. 485 , 491 (N.D.Tex.1997) (”
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.