Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 F.3d 338 - Barnett v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Barnett v. Department of Veterans Affairs’s Empirical Analysis

153 F.3d 338 · 1998

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
3
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Thaddeus-X v. Blatter (1999), Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court (2000)

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

5001998200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “by supervisor who made it known that he disliked plaintiff and used her as the butt of office jokes is consistent with personal dislike rather than discriminatory animus); Kriss v. Sprint Communications Co., 58 F.3d 1276, 1281 (8th Cir. 1995) (use of the word”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hile, under other circumstances, proof of personal conflict may provide some indicia of discriminatory animus, such is not the case here.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[P]ersonal conflict does not equate with discriminatory animus.”
    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.