green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Quick v. Vistacare, Inc.
See Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393-94 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Chiari v. City of League City, 920 F.2d 311, 315 (5th Cir.1991)), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994); see also Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC, 487 F.3d 309, 315 (5th Cir.2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Ditullio v. Village of Massena
See Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1390 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994); Bancale v. Cox Lumber Co., Inc., 1998 WL 469863 (M.D.Fla.
discussed
Cited "see"
Francis J. Kelly v. Drexel University
See Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994) (holding that even employer's belief that plaintiff could not perform particular task safely does not establish that employer regarded plaintiff as disabled); cf. Cook v. Rhode Island Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hosps., 10 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir.1993) (holding that employer regarded plaintiff as disabled where employer believed that plaintiff's impairment foreclosed broad range of employment options in relevant industry).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Murray
See United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1337 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1385 , 128 L.Ed.2d 60 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Beaumont v. Bouillion
See United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1337 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1385 , 128 L.Ed.2d 60 (1994); United States v. Iron Moccasin, 878 F.2d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302, 1314 (10th Cir.1987). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brock v. Walden University & Affiliates
A qualified individual is an individual who is able to perform the essential functions of the employment position either with or without reasonable accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (8); see also Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1093 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citing Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 (1994)) (‘To avoid summary judgment on whether [she] is a qualified individual, [one must] show 1) that [she] could perform the essential functions of the job in spite of [her] disability or 2) that a reasonable accommod…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cortez v. Raytheon Co.
In general, the “essential functions” of a job are the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(n)(1); see also Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393-94 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994) (essential functions are those that bear more than a marginal relationship to the job at issue).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dahill v. Police Department
Compare Chandler v. Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1390-1391 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 (1994) (correctable vision not “handicap”), with Davis v. Meese, 692 F. Supp. 505, 517 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Duprey v. Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
See, e.g., Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1396 (5th Cir. 1993)(in a case challenging physical standards for certain city employees as violating the Rehabilitation Act, the court reversed the certification of a class of handicapped persons because the determination of whether an individual is handicapped was necessarily an individualized inquiry), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Witold Pluta
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1336 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1385 , 128 L.Ed.2d 60 (1994); 5 J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. O'Neal
See Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir.1978); Lopez v. Malley, 552 F.2d 682, 683 (10th Cir.1977); see also United States v. Bravo, 10 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir.1993) (“on a claim for post-conviction relief, as on direct appeal, one who has escaped from custody is not entitled” to a determination of his claims by the court), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 60 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Popko v. Pennsylvania State University
See Beck v. University of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1137 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming summary judgment, holding employer properly communicated with employee about an accommodation, and therefore, could not be liable under the ADA); see also Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994) (holding “[a]n employer’s belief that an employee is unable to perform one task with an adequate safety margin does not establish per se that the employer regards the employee as having a substantial limitation on his …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. Pennsylvania State Police Department
See, e.g., Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1390 (5th Cir.1993) (finding that plaintiff with 20/60 vision was not handicapped under the Rehabilitation Act, and relying on precedent wMch held that vision corrected to 20/200 did not constitute a handicap), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994); Sweet, 1996 WL 204471 at *4 (rejecting disability claim of plaintiff with perfect vision in one eye and correctable to 20/80 in the other eye); Joyce, 911 F.Supp. at 96 (finding that police officer candidate with uncorrected vision of 20/200 was not disabled); Sacke…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaul v. AT & T, INC.
Pt. 1630 App. § 1630.2(j); see also Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385 (5th Cir.1993) (“The question of whether an impairment constitutes a substantial limitation to a major life activity is best suited to a case-by-case determination.”), cer t. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994); Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 933 (4th Cir.1986) (“The inquiry is, of necessity, an individualized one — whether the particular impairment constitutes for the particular person a significant barrier to employment.”); Dotson v. Electro-Wire Products, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 982,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guckenberger v. Boston University
See, e.g., Chandler v. City of Dallas, *326 2 F.3d 1385, 1396 (5th Cir.1993) (finding class certification inappropriate because “the determinations of whether an individual is handicapped or ‘otherwise qualified’ are necessarily individualized inquiries”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. City of Overland Park
See Deckert, 1995 WL 580074 at *7; See also Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1390-91 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011 , 114 S.Ct. 1386 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald S. Arnold
Although the prosecutor relied primarily on instinct to explain the peremptory challenge, we have held that such subjective factors can play a legitimate role in jury selection. 1 Burks, 27 F.3d at 1429 ; see also United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1337-38 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the prosecutor's explanation that a juror appeared hesitant and was too easily led by the questions was race-neutral), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1385 (1994); United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1454 (9th Cir.) (accepting lack of attentiveness and unkempt appearance as racially neutral reasons), cert. denied…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lux et ux.
v.
Spotswood Construction Loans, L. P.
v.
Spotswood Construction Loans, L. P.
No. 93-8028.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 28, 1994.
Published
Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.