Oates v. Discovery Zone’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.3d 1161 · 1997
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic, Ltd. (1998), Lee v. City of Chicago (2003)
72 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“do not resemble unsatisfactory work performance. 3 (Br. of Appellant at 16.) Appellate courts reviewing Title VII claims do not sit as a "super-personnel department that re-examines an entity's business decisions.”
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.