green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
2.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“The word solely provides the key: the discrimination must result from the handicap and the handicap alone.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Doe v. Arlington County School Board
the word solely provides the key: the discrimination must result from the handicap and the handicap alone.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall, Moffett v. Alabama Association of School Boards, Sandra Sims-Degraffenreid
See Lee v. Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 963 F.2d 1426 , 1428 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1257 , 122 L.Ed.2d 655 (1993); Elston v. Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394 , 1401 (11th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sellers ex rel. Sellers v. School Board of Manassas
See Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1492 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Strathie v. Department of Transp., 716 F.2d 227 , 230 (3d Cir.1983)), ce rt. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1255 , 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Love v. Morton
See Maula v. Freckleton, 972 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir.1992) (citing Goldstein for the "totality of the circumstances” position but focusing solely on defendant’s opportunity to object), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1255 , 122 L.Ed.2d 653 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Oral Testimony of a Witness Subpoenaed Pursuant to Civil Investigative Demand No. 98-19
See United States v. Markwood, 48 F.3d 969, 975-76 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that a CID is an administrative subpoena because the Department of Justice is an administrative agency and because the analogous antitrust CID is an administrative subpoena); see also FTC v. Invention Submission Corp., 965 F.2d 1086, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1255 , 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (FTC CID); United States v. Witmer, 835 F.Supp. 208, 212 (M.D.Pa.1993), aff'd, 30 F.3d 1489 (3d Cir.1994) (FCA CID).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rio v. Runyon
See, e.g., Maulding v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 694 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1255 , 122 L.Ed.2d 653 (1993) (alleged sensitivity to chemicals that prevented plaintiff from performing lab work but did not substantially limit employment as a whole did not constitute disability); Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 933 (4th Cir.1986) (“The inquiry is whether ... the particular impairment constitutes for the particular person a significant barrier to employment”); Jasany v. United States Postal Serv., 755 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir.1985) (postal clerk with mild case of crossed eyes …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bush
See also United States v. Figueroa, 35 M.J. 54, 56 (C.M.A.1992) (omissions of information should be analyzed in the same manner as misrepresentations), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 910 , 113 S.Ct. 1257 , 122 L.Ed.2d 655 (1993).
Maulding
v.
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services
v.
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services
No. 92-762.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1993.
507 U.S. 910
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.