Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 F.3d 174 - Darnell v. Target Stores

Darnell v. Target Stores’s Empirical Analysis

16 F.3d 174 · 1994

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
6
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Kralman v. Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs (1994), Hill v. Tangherlini (2013)

34 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

6501994200020102020decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co. · McCoy v. WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. · Brooms v. Regal Tube Co. · Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Insurance

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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “parties cannot thwart the purpose of Rule 56 [summary judgment] by creating issues of fact through affidavits that contradict their own depositions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America · Piscione v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
  2. “party should not be allowed to create issues of credibility by contradicting his own earlier testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Rudolph L. Lucien v. Richard B. Gramley, and Howard A. Peters III · United States ex rel. Small Business Administration v. Torres
  3. “adversarial in nature and provide the opportunity for direct and cross-examination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Rudolph L. Lucien v. Richard B. Gramley, and Howard A. Peters III · Harris v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

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.