Puffenbarger v. Engility Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 · 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (§ 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A contributing factor is any factor, which alone or in combination with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision. This element is broad and forgiving, and this test is specifically intended to overrule existing case law, which requires a whistleblower to prove that his protected conduct was a ‘significant,’ ‘motivating,’ ‘substantial,’ or ‘predominant’ factor in a personnel action in order to overturn that action. Temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action is a significant factor in considering a circumstantial showing of causation, the causal connection may be severed by the passage of a significant amount of time, or by some legitimate intervening event.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.