McCarthy v. New York City Technical College of City University’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[O]n a motion for a judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict, or on appeal after trial, the question is always whether, after ‘drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and making all credibility assessments in his favor, there is sufficient evidence to permit a rational juror to find in his favor.’ ‘Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics Inc., 957 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1992); see also Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (“[T]he judge must ask ... whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented [,] ... whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.... ”); Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192, 200 (2d Cir.1999) (standard to grant summary judgment is whether there is “sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that [defendant] discriminated.”)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 101 F. Supp. 2d 134 - United States v. Nachamie · 146 F. Supp. 2d 280 - New England Insurance v. Healthcare Underwriters Mutual Insurance

2. “An employer’s assertion of false reasons does not eliminate the requirement that the evidence, considered in its entirety, including any inference reasonably drawn from the falsity of the proffered reasons, must be capable of supporting a reasonable finding that the true reason was the prohibited discrimination plaintiff alleges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 96 F. Supp. 2d 320 - Cruse v. G & J USA Publishing

3. “The ADEA makes it `unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual [of at least 40 years of age] or otherwise discriminate against any [such] individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Feldman v. Nassau County