Wiest v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 781 · 15 U.S.C. § 782 · 15 U.S.C. § 787 · 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (§ 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 49 U.S.C. § 42121
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Monge v. California · Bourjaily 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.” (See Appellant's br. at 44 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104 (e)(2))). That standard, however, governs a complainant’s ability to proceed with an investigation at the outset. As § 1980.109(a) declares,”
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.