Scott v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Carter v. City of Miami · Nguyen v. City of Cleveland
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in making the employment decision directly manifesting a discriminatory attitude, of a sufficient quantum and gravity that would allow the factfinder to conclude that attitude more likely than not was a motivating factor in the employment decision. Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 F.3d 718, 724 (8th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate ..., satisfy this criteria. Carter v. City of Miami 870 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir.1989).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.