Harris v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 929 · 1989
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (1996), Antol v. Perry (1996)
17 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. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 38 U.S.C. § 1504 · 38 U.S.C. § 2011 · 38 U.S.C. § 2012 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Cort v. Ash · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [t]he plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that he was an otherwise qualified handicapped person apart from his handicap, and he was rejected under circumstances which gave rise to the inference that his rejection was based solely on his handicap; (2) Once plaintiff establishes his prima facie case, defendants have the burden of going forward and proving that plaintiff was not an otherwise qualified handicapped person, that is one who is able to meet all of the program’s requirements in spite o/his handicap, or that his rejection from the program was for reasons other than his handicap.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the absence of genuine disputes over facts which, under the substantive law governing the issue, might affect the outcome of the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) (1) The United States has an obligation to assist veterans of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life.... It is, therefore, the policy of the United States and the purpose of this section to promote the maximum of employment and job advancement opportunities within the Federal Government for qualified covered veterans who are qualified for such employment and advancement. Hs % Ofi ‡ (c) Each agency shall include in its affirmative action plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of handicapped individuals in such agency as required by section 501(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(b)) a separate specification of plans ... to promote and carry out such affirmative action with respect to disabled veterans in order to achieve the purpose of this section.”
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.