green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 21×
58.9 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 ·
…because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
at p. 1205
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2000 ·
…general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada.
at p. 1207
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…the ultimate burden of proving unlawful discrimination always rests with the plaintiff.
at p. 1206
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Steven Nuzum, Sr. v. Ozark Automotive
while lifting is noted under the regulations as a major life activity, a general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rachael Lundquist v. Rice Memorial Hosp.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is a threshold question.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Inglis v. Buena Vista University
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Barnes v. Northwest Iowa Health Center
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmov- 1066 ant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baker v. John Morrell & Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wensel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmov-ant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hanna v. Boys & Girls Home & Family Services, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Peda v. American Home Products Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Nava v. Titan Wheel Corp. of Wisconsin
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Brown v. Farmland Foods, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Albert James Conant v. City of Hibbing
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we review a district court's grant of summary judgment do novo, applying the same standard as the district court and examining the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ciszewski v. Engineered Polymers Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
it is not enough that an impairment affect a major life activity; the plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that such activity is substantially or materially limited.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Duncan, Jimmy L. v. WMATA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Duncan v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Duncan, Jimmy L. v. WMATA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rita Y. Greer v. Emerson Electric Company, a Foreign Corporation
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the inability to perform a single particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rita Y. Greer v. Emerson Electric Co.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the inability to perform a single particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Laurin v. Providence Hospital
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the ultimate burden of proving unlawful discrimination always rests with the plaintiff.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Laurin v. Providence Hospital
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the ultimate burden of proving unlawful discrimination always rests with the plaintiff.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sharon Laurin v. The Providence Hospital and Massachusetts Nurses Association
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the ultimate burden of proving unlawful discrimination always rests with the plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hansen v. Sioux By-Products
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
summary judgment is proper when a plaintiff fails to establish a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Irving v. Dierbergs
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (25–pound restriction does not limit ability to perform major life activity)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ariza v. Loomis Armored US, LLC
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benjamin Reynolds v. American National Red Cross
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“While lifting is noted under the regulations as a major life activity, a general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cyr v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) ("seldom," "particularly deferential" to the nonmovant, affirming).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McDonald v. City of New York
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA”); Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., Inc., 101 F.3d 346, 349 (4th Cir.1996) (same, for twenty-five pound lifting limitation); Aucutt v. Six Flags, Over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311, 1319 (8th Cir.1996) (same, for twenty-five pound lifting restriction); Piascyk, 64 F.Supp.2d at 29-30 (same, for fifteen pound lifting restriction), id. (collecting cases); Gittens v. Garlocks Sealing Technols., 19 F.Sup…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
St. Martin v. City of Saint Paul
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206-07 (8th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jelsma v. City of Sioux Falls
No ADA violation exists if the individual is unable to perform one particular job, rather the individual must be unable to perform “an entire class or broad range of jobs.” Snow, 128 F.3d at 1207.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rensink v. Wells Dairy, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir.1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (“seldom,” “particularly deferential” to the nonmovant, affirming).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lizotte v. Dacotah Bank
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lytes v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA”); Coleman-Adebayo v. Leavitt, 326 F.Supp.2d 132, 142-43 (D.D.C.2004) (“[A] person whose daily life activities are not substantially limited, even though her performance at work is subject to physical limitations, is not disabled.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Husinga v. Federal-Mogul Ignition Co.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (stating that the burden ' shifting scheme set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), is used to analyze claims brought under the ADA).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vernon E. Christensen v. Titan Distribution, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vernon Christensen v. Titan Distribution
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Napreljac v. John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (25-pound lifting restriction and restriction preventing plaintiff from pushing heaving objects does not substantially limit major life activity of working); Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 617-18 (8th Cir.1997) (restrictions preventing the plaintiff from performing sustained, repetitive activities with either hand or lifting more than ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally disqualified plaintiff only from jobs requiring “a substantial amount of sustained repetitive motion and heavy lifting”); Aucutt v. Six Flags Ov…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuller v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“It is not enough that an impairment affects a major life activity; the plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that such activity is substantially or materially limited.”) In EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., 237 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2001), the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff suffering from epilepsy produced insufficient evidence that she was substantially limited as to the major life activities of sleeping, thinking, and caring for herself despite proffered evidence of occasional nighttime seizures and general restl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF HEALTH
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) ("It is not enough that an impairment affects a major life activity; the plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that such activity is substantially or materially limited.") In EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., 237 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2001), the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff suffering from epilepsy produced insufficient evidence that she was substantially limited as to the major life activities of sleeping, thinking, and caring for herself despite proffered evidence of occasional nighttime seizures and general restless …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Francis v. Providence School Board
While we may assume the latter activities may, in some circumstances and upon a proper showing, relate to a major life activity, see, e.g., Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Service, Inc., 283 F.3d 11, 21 (1st Cir.2002) (lifting), in order to survive summary judgment, it is not enough simply to assert the limitation; “[a] plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that [a major life] activity is substantially or materially limited.” Id. at 24 (quoting Snow v. Ridgeview Medical Center, 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Murphy v. M.C. Lint, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harding v. CIANBRO CORPORATION
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997); Thompson v. Holy Family Hosp., 121 F.3d 537, 539-40 (9th Cir.1997); Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., 101 F.3d 346 , 349 (4th Cir.1996) (per curiam); see also Mellon v. Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dvorak v. Clean Water Services
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“It is not enough that an impairment affect a major life activity; the plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that such activity is substantially or materially limited”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sondra L. Samuels v. Kansas City School
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir. 1997).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sondra L. Samuels, Dr. v. Kansas City Missouri School District
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brenneman v. Famous Dave's of America, Inc.
Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir.1995)); Woodsmith Publ’g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Nuzum, Sr. v. Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., Doing Business as O'Reilly Auto Parts
Cbr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (“While lifting is noted under the regulations as a major life activity, a general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA.”); see also Dropinski v. Douglas County, Neb., 298 F.3d 704 , 707 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002) (stating that if the plaintiff proved only lifting restriction, it “might” not be enough to establish disability).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chinyere Jenkins, Etc.
v.
State of Missouri
v.
State of Missouri
97-2626.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1997.
Published
122 Ed. Law Rep. 572
Chinyere JENKINS, etc., et al, Appellees,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al, Appellants.
No. 97-2626WMKC.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit
Oct. 8, 1997.
On the court's own motion, petition for rehearing by the court en banc is granted. The opinion and judgment of the court entered on August 14, 1997 are vacated.
1
The case will be argued to the en banc court during the Januay session in St. Louis with the specific date and time to be fixed by later order of this court.