Witt v. Roadway Express’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.3d 1424 · 1998
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 72 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Jackson v. Quanex Corp. (1999), Manatt v. Bank of America, NA (2003)
28 federal appellate · 72 district · 1 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 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A rebut-table presumption of receipt does arise on evidence that a properly addressed piece of mail is placed in the care of the postal service.”) (citation omitted). See also Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, Inc., 822 F.2d 939, 941 (10th Cir.1987) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our review of each of the district court's rulings requires us to view the allegations and evidence in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff as] the non-movant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bekkem v. Wilkie
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.