Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 912 · 1997
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 53 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 261 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 317 - Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000), Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (2002)
60 federal appellate · 53 district · 10 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Henderson v. Brown
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 261 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[To] survive summary judgment, [plaintiff] must produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude either: (a) that the alleged reason for [plaintiff's] discharge was false, or (b) that the true reason for discharge was a discriminatory one.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] plaintiff must first establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. Then, in order to prevail, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s alleged reason for the adverse employment decision is a pretext for another motive which is discriminatory.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this [title], or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this [title].”
2 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.