Standard v. Abel Services Inc’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 1318 · 1998
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 478 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Chapman v. AI Transport (2000), Alexander v. Fulton County (2000)
59 federal appellate · 4 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Combs v. Plantation Patterns · Holifield v. Reno
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 478 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Direct evidence is evidence that establishes the existence of discriminatory intent behind the employment decision without any inference or presumption.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) showing that he was a member of a protected group and was adversely affected by an employment decision; (2) proving that he was qualified for his own position or to assume another position at the time of the discharge; and (3) producing sufficient evidence from which a rational fact finder could conclude that his employer intended to discriminate him in making the discharge decision.”
2 later decisions 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.