Randlett v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 857 · 1997
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1998)
34 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 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 Hishon v. King & Spalding · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Withrow v. Williams · Taylor v. Freeland · Sturman v. United States
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]erms, conditions, or privileges' is pretty open-ended language ... [which] obviously includes opportunities that are not strictly entitlements, and a number of cases have extended coverage to slights or indignities that might seem evanescent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he adverse action must have been taken for the purpose of retaliating.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
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.