Smith v. Ameritech’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 857 · 1997
Citation profile
137 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 390 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corp. (1999), Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc. (1999)
137 federal appellate · 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline
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 390 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“come forward with evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendant's desire to avoid [retirement benefit] liability was a determining factor in plaintiff's discharge.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by showing the existence of (1) prohibited employer conduct (2) taken for the purpose of interfering (3) with the attainment of any right to which the employee may become entitled.”
4 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.