Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 F.3d 1047 - Balint v. Carson City

Balint v. Carson City’s Empirical Analysis

180 F.3d 1047 · 1999

Citation profile

330
cited by 330 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

150 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 330 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Max Lopez Jr v. Ga Smith Larry Loo a Acevedo Patterson 4a-2r (2000), Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer (2004)

150 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions

25701999200020102020decided

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 (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison · United States v. Washington · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hacienda Hotel

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

  1. “the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]his court does not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter, but only determines whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the employee must establish a prima facie case [of discrimination] by proving that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements.”
    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.