Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co.’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.3d 1018 · 1998
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Putman v. Unity Health System (2003), Pope v. ESA Services, Inc. (2005)
57 federal appellate · 12 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the threshold of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case is minimal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he rule in this Circuit is that [a discrimination] plaintiff can avoid summary judgment only if the evidence considered in its entirety (1) creates a fact issue as to whether the employer’s proffered reasons are pretextual and (2) creates a reasonable inference that [the plaintiffs disability] was a determinative factor in the adverse employment decision. The second part of this test sometimes may be satisfied without additional evidence where the overall strength of the prima facie case and the evidence of pretext “suffice[s] to show intentional discrimination.” The focus, however, always remains on the ultimate question of law: whether the evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff because of the plaintiffs [disability].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 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.