Wolff v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 682 · 1997
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Roach (1998), Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (2007)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas · Midland Central Appraisal District v. Midland Industrial Service Corp. · Toski v. McDonnell · Ryther v. KARE 11
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“internal documents relied upon by the employer in making an employment decision are not hearsay as that term is defined in Fed.R.Evid 801(c) — statements offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. Rather, such docquments are relevant and admissible because they help explain (or may help explain) the employer’s conduct. [Wolff v. Brown, 128 F.3d 682 , 685 (8th Cir.1997).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'proof that an employer would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discriminatory reasons is relevant to determine not the liability for discriminatory employment practices, but only the appropriate remedy.'”
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.