Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2008(See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002) 535 U.S. 391, 403-04 , 122 S.Ct. 1516 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 [proposed accommodation not reasonable because it would conflict with seniority rights of other employees]; Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 ["Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties."]; Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (2004) 216 W.Va. 63 , 602 S.E.2d 506, 516 ["`reasonable accommodation means reasonable modifications or adjustments to be d 2008(See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002) 535 U.S. 391, 403-04 , 122 S.Ct. 1516 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 [proposed accommodation not reasonable because it would conflict with seniority rights of other employees]; Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 ["Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties."]; Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (2004) 216 W.Va. 63 , 602 S.E.2d 506, 516 ["`reasonable accommodation means reasonable modifications or adjustments to be d | 1 | 1 |
Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2008(See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002) 535 U.S. 391, 403-04 , 122 S.Ct. 1516 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 [proposed accommodation not reasonable because it would conflict with seniority rights of other employees]; Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 ["Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties."]; Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (2004) 216 W.Va. 63 , 602 S.E.2d 506, 516 ["`reasonable accommodation means reasonable modifications or adjustments to be d 2008(See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002) 535 U.S. 391, 403-04 , 122 S.Ct. 1516 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 [proposed accommodation not reasonable because it would conflict with seniority rights of other employees]; Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 ["Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties."]; Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (2004) 216 W.Va. 63 , 602 S.E.2d 506, 516 ["`reasonable accommodation means reasonable modifications or adjustments to be d | 1 | 1 |
cluster 774562green1 sentence2003The cadet is required to complete this test within 5 minutes and 5 seconds. 6 Plaintiff disputes these requirements, arguing that the determination of an essential job function is “a highly fact-specific inquiry ....” (Cripe v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 877, 888, fn. 12 .) Although the essential functions of a job are a question of fact, plaintiff has failed to present any relevant facts that dispute the CDC’s evidence on this issue and therefore has failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the question. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Incorporated v. City Of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2026(See, e.g., Oconomowoc Residential Programs v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir. 2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 [“Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties”]; Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1243 , 1247 [determining whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable “requires a fact-specific, individualized inquiry”].) Still, other faculty members may prefer union representation and bargaining on the issue. 2008(See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002) 535 U.S. 391, 403-04 , 122 S.Ct. 1516 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 [proposed accommodation not reasonable because it would conflict with seniority rights of other employees]; Oconomowoc Residential Prog. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 ["Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties."]; Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (2004) 216 W.Va. 63 , 602 S.E.2d 506, 516 ["`reasonable accommodation means reasonable modifications or adjustments to be d | 2 | 2008–2026 |
Vera L. Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Mike Black Rita Silva
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., Oconomowoc Residential Programs v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir. 2002) 300 F.3d 775 , 784 [“Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a highly fact-specific inquiry and requires balancing the needs of the parties”]; Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1243 , 1247 [determining whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable “requires a fact-specific, individualized inquiry”].) Still, other faculty members may prefer union representation and bargaining on the issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Carrington
green
1 sentence2023(Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 163 .) To determine whether information is stale, courts 11 consider the “ ‘character of the crime . . . , of the criminal . . . , of the thing to be seized . . . , [and] of the place to be searched . . . ,’ ” all of which are highly variable. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Figueroa
green
1 sentence2022(In re Figueroa (2018) 4 Cal.5th 576, 587 ) [if “the court conclude[s] there are factual issues in dispute, ‘it may appoint a referee and order an evidentiary hearing’ ”].) In sum, this is a highly fact-specific inquiry that will benefit from additional argument and evidence that is not part of the record before us on direct appeal. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.