Jordan v. Stanziola’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Waldron v. SL Industries, Inc. · Lorenzo
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“counsel explicitly abandoned that claim at oral argument’’); see also Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(d). Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of Rhino on this counterclaim without further discussion. 15 . Rhino seeks judgment on Berg’s claim that another prior patent (patent no. 332,928, hereinafter”
2 later decisions 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.