Montgomery v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fails to contact a postal EEO counselor within days of the incident and who is employed at a facility where the requisite EEO posters are posted will be considered on constructive notice of the time limitations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Runyon“can perform the essential functions of the position in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Runyon
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.