Graves v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis
117 F.3d 723 · 1997
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Sizova v. National Institute of Standards & Technology (2002), Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co. (1999)
15 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Nami v. Fauver · Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co.
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the courts are considered the employers of judicial personnel!)] • • • this fact does not preclude the possibility that a county may share co-employer or joint employer status with the courts[] ... [if both] entities exercise significant control over the same employees.” Id. at 727 . Rather than expressly considering the Darden factors, we drew guidance from ' cases assessing”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue is not whether a [Plaintiff] will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that they were covered by the County's personnel policies, that they were told that they were County employees, that the County investigated their allegation of sexual harassment, that they were subject to termination and/or reinstatement by the County and that two of them were hired by the County.”
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.