Washington v. Garrett’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 1421 · 1993
Citation profile
162 federal appellate · 27 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 290 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 317 - Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000), Fuentes v. Perskie (1994)
162 federal appellate · 27 district · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 7702 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Richardson v. Perales · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 290 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We note that, in the ordinary case, such fundamentally different justifications for an employer's action would give rise to a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext since they suggest the possibility that neither of the official reasons was the true reason”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A]s St. Mary's recognizes, the factfinder in a Title VII case is entitled to infer discrimination from plaintiff's proof of a prima facie case and showing of pretext without anything more . . . .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If [the] plaintiff succeeds in raising a genuine factual issue regarding the authenticity of the employer's stated motive, summary judgment is inappropriate, because it is for the trier of fact to decide which story is to be believed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.