Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 83 - Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000), 74 Cal. App. 4th 1105 - Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP (1999)
2 federal appellate · 19 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)
Relies on 47 Cal. 3d 654 - Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. · 52 Cal. 3d 65 - Rojo v. Kliger · 52 Cal. 3d 1 - Shoemaker v. Myers · 1 Cal. 4th 1083 - Gantt v. Sentry Insurance · 116 Cal. App. 3d 311 - Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n employer who fires an employee for "expos[ing] to view" or "mak[ing] known" an employer's illegal conduct plainly violates a "fundamental" or "substantial" public policy regardless of the militancy or the decibel level of the report and even if the employee has chosen not to actively oppose the illegal conduct. A contrary rule would provide corporate managers incentive to terminate an employee after the employee has reported illegal activity but before the employee has had the opportunity to "protest" such activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bigelow v. Bullard“1. An employer-employee relationship; 2. Termination or other adverse employment action; 3. The termination or adverse action was a violation of public policy; 4. Termination or adverse action was a legal cause of plaintiffs damage; and 5. The nature and extent of plaintiffs damages.”
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.