Manges v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 513 U.S. 1152 (1995). · Go Syfert
Manges v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 513 U.S. 1152 (1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 34 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bennett v. Calabrian Chemicals Corp. (txed, 2004-06-09) · Strongest negative: Lee v. Gov DE (ca3, 2006-08-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Lee v. Gov DE
3rd Cir. · 2006 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Trades Council v. Mayor & Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 219 , 104 S.Ct. 1020 , 79 L.Ed.2d 249 (1984) (holding that Privileges and Immunities Clause protected right of noncitizen to engage in construction work and noting that "the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the Clause''); see also Piper, 470 U.S. 274 , 105 S.Ct. 1272 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205 (holding that New Hampshire policy which restricted practice of law by out-of-state residents violated Privileges and Immunities Clause); Toomer, 334 U.S. 385 , 68 S.Ct. 1156 , 92 L.Ed. 1460 (concl…
discussed Cited "but see" Lee v. Minner
3rd Cir. · 2006 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Trades Council v. Mayor & Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 219 , 104 S.Ct. 1020 , 79 L.Ed.2d 249 (1984) (holding that Privileges and Immunities Clause protected right of noncitizen to engage in construction work and noting that "the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the Clause"); see also Piper, 470 U.S. 274 , 105 S.Ct. 1272 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205 (holding that New Hampshire policy which restricted practice of law by out-of-state residents violated Privileges and Immunities Clause); Toomer, 334 U.S. 385 , 68 S.Ct. 1156 , 92 L.Ed. 1460 (conclu…
discussed Cited "see" Bennett v. Calabrian Chemicals Corp.
E.D. Tex. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
“The particularized inquiry mandated by the ADA centers on substantial limitation of major life activities, not mere impairment.” Ivy, 192 F.3d at 516 (citing Sutton, 527 U.S. at 482 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 ); see Williams, 534 U.S. at 198 , 122 S.Ct. 681 (citing Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. at 565 , 119 S.Ct. 2162 ). *828 While “working” is considered by many courts to be a major life activity, working “ ‘does not necessarily mean working at a particular job of one’s choice.’ ” Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1093 , 117 S.Ct. 770 , 136 L…
discussed Cited "see" Dube v. Middlesex Corp.
Mass. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 944 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 (1995) (independent of the employee’s inability to perform the essential functions of the job, the employee’s failure to demonstrate any significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes was fatal to his Federal disability discrimination claim; summary judgment for employer affirmed).
cited Cited "see" Heiman v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) (relying on 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (i)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Citifinancial Mortgage Co. (In Re Williams)
8th Cir. BAP · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Continental Airlines, 91 F.3d 553, 560 (3rd Cir.1996) (citing, inter alia, Manges v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank (In re Manges), 29 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (5th Cir.1994)) cert. denied 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1105 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995). 12 .
discussed Cited "see" Darick Williams v. Citifinancial Mortg.
8th Cir. BAP · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Continental Airlines, 91 F.3d 553 , 560 (3rd Cir. 1996) (citing, inter alia, Manges v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank (In re Manges), 29 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (5th Cir. 1994)) cert. denied 513 U.S. 1152 (1995). 12 In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 798 (9th Cir. 1981). 13 of the first questions that must be asked before any equitable doctrine can be applied is “whether he who seeks equity has done equity.” Smith v. World Insurance Co., 38 F.3d 1456 , 1462 (8th Cir. 1994 ) (citing Prow v. Medtronic, Inc., 770 F.2d 117, 122 (8th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited "see" Graves v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
D. Utah · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Teresita Pack v. Kmart Corporation, a Michigan Corporation Steve Nicholas, an Individual, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Pack v. K Mart Corporation
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 (1995).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Berryman Products, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Block Shim, 939 F.2d at 291 (in evaluating dismissal of a case as moot, the court "reviews factual findings of the district court using a clearly erroneous standard in light of the entire record.") 7 In re Manges, 29 F.3d 1034 , 1038-39 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1105 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995) 8 Id. at 1039; see also In re Andreuccetti, 975 F.2d 413, 418 (7th Cir.1992); In re Crystal Oil Co., 854 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir.1988); In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793 , 798 (9th Cir.1981) 9 Manges, 29 F.3d at 1039; Block Shim, 939 F.2d at 291 10 See In re Public Ser…
discussed Cited "see" Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Long Shot Drilling, Inc. (In Re Long Shot Drilling, Inc.)
10th Cir. BAP · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Manges, 29 F.3d 1034 , 1041 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1105 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995) (citing Board of License Comm’rs v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238 , 105 S.Ct. 685 , 83 L.Ed.2d 618 (1985)).
discussed Cited "see" Alfaro v. Vazquez (In Re Alfaro)
1st Cir. BAP · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Manges v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank (In re Manges), 29 F.3d 1034 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1105 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995) (appellate review may be precluded on grounds of mootness).
cited Cited "see" Gonzales v. Sandoval County
D.N.M. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 944 (10th Cir.1994) (discussing ADEA), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Richmond v. Oneok, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
discussed Cited "see" Piper v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2×)
E.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 943 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995). 6 The first three factors “should be considered” when determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (j)(2), and the additional three factors “may be considered” when determining whether an impairment *571 substantially limits the major life activity of working.
cited Cited "see" Matter Of: ALPHONSO SOLOMON, Debtor. ALPHONSO SOLOMON, JANET M SOLOMON v. ROBERT MILBANK, Trustee, ET AL
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Manges v. Seattle First National Bank (Matter of Manges), 29 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S. Ct. 1105 , 130 L.
cited Cited "see" Matter Of: ALPHONSO SOLOMON, Debtor. ALPHONSO SOLOMON, JANET M SOLOMON v. ROBERT MILBANK, Trustee, ET AL
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Manges v. Seattle First National Bank (Matter of Manges), 29 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S. Ct. 1105 , 130 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Loeckle v. State Farm Automobile Insurance
N.D. Iowa · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rather, a person claiming a disability must show that the impairment “significantly restrictfs] [his or her] ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” Id.; see also Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942-44 (10th Cir.1994) (Bolton ) (work-related injury preventing employee from performing his job as order selector in grocery warehouse was not substantial limitation in major life activity of working, as required for unlawful discharge claim under ADA, absent e…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cynthia Thompson v. Holy Family Hospital, a Division of Dominican Health Services
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (j)(3)(ii); see also Bolton v. Scrivner, 36 F.3d 939, 944 (10th Cir.1994) (affirming summary judgment for the employer where the evidence did not address the plaintiffs “vocational training, the geographical area to which he has access, or the number and type of jobs demanding similar training from which [plaintiff] would also be disqualified”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ingles v. Neiman Marcus Group
S.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Because the ADA expressly requires its provisions to be interpreted in a way that “prevents imposition of inconsistent or conflicting standards for the same requirements’ under the two statutes,” case law interpreting the Rehabilitation Act may be relied upon in actions brought under the ADA Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (b)); see also Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942-43 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152 , 115 S.Ct. 1104 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995) (citing 29 C.F.R, Part 1630 App., § 1630.2(g)); Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385 , 1391 n. 18 (5th Cir.1993),…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Manges
v.
Seattle-First National Bank
No. 94-1111.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1995.
513 U.S. 1152
Published

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.