887 F. Supp. 695 - Sharp v. Abate’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2013
1 district ·
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director · McWherter v. Brooks
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such a determination should be based upon more than statements in a job description and should reflect the actual fimctioning and circumstances of the particular enterprise involved”); Sharp v. Abate, 887 F.Supp. 695, 698-99 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“laborer” for the town’s Highway Department despite written job description stating that the worker must have the”
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.