Scaria v. Rubin’s Empirical Analysis
117 F.3d 652 · 1997
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Terry v. Ashcroft (2003), Norton v. Sam's Club (1998)
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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 · Dister v. Continental Group, Inc. · Fisher v. Vassar College
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘When a court comes to consider, either upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or after a plaintiffs verdict, whether the evidence can support a verdict of discrimination, ... the judge must analyze the evidence, along with the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from it, and decide if it raises a jury question as to whether the plaintiff was the victim of discrimination. If so, summary judgment must be denied and/or a jury verdict for plaintiff must be sustained. If not, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment or to the overturning of a plaintiffs verdict as clearly erroneous.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under that framework, a plaintiff must satisfy the minimal burden of making out a prima facie case of discrimination; the burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and the final burden rests on the plaintiff to prove not only that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual but also that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). III. CONCLUSION 42 Taking all factual inferences in favor of appellant, we conclude that no rational trier of fact could find that appellee terminated appellant because of his age. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Notes: 1 This re-statement of ADEA principles applies to so-called”
1 later decision 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.