Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 41 flagged citations have been read. Later courts continued to rely on Reese's separate injury and collective bargaining holdings.
41 later cases cite Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.; 41 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Washington Supreme Court rejected Reese's narrow handicap definition for unfair practice claims and overruled it to the extent it made handicap status a question of law.
Phillips v. City of Seattle · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
we hold the definition of handicap given in Reese does not apply in unfair practice cases. ... Therefore, we disapprove the Kimmel holding that whether a particular condition is a handicap is a question of law and, to the extent necessary, also overrule Reese.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace