Denise Arguello Alberto Govea Gary Ivory Anthony Pickett Michael Manuel Escobedo Martha Escobedo v. Conoco Inc’s Empirical Analysis
207 F.3d 803 · 2000
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc. (2004), Arguello v. Conoco, Inc. (2003)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a public accommodation case such as this, the supervisory status of the discriminating employee is much less relevant than it is in an employment discrimination case.... Also, in a public accommodation case under § 1981, a rule that only actions by supervisors are imputed to the employer would result, in most cases, in a no liability rule. Unlike the employment context it is rare that in a public accommodation settings (sic) a consumer will be mistreated by a manager or supervisor. Most consumer encounters are between consumers and clerks who are non-supervisory employees.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has addressed the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under Title II. Furthermore, the law in the other circuits is generally unclear as to whether disparate impact claims are recognized under Title II.”). 24 . Deubert v. Gulf Fed. Savings Bank, 820 F.2d 754, 757 (5th Cir.1987). 25 . Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) ¶¶ 49-50. 26 . Id. 27 . Word of Faith World Outreach Ctr. Church v. Sawyer, 90 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir.1996) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
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.