Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 210 F.3d 1334 - Abel v. Dubberly

Abel v. Dubberly’s Empirical Analysis

210 F.3d 1334 · 2000

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Chapman v. AI Transport (2000), Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. (2004)

28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

550200020102020decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Combs v. Plantation Patterns · Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications · Mendoza v. Borden, 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the non-movant must put forth more than a mere scintilla of evidence suggesting that reasonable minds could reach differing verdicts.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]n ‘employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a discriminatory reason.’ ” (quoting Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Commc’ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir.1984))). 12 . We have held that”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he court should deny [a motion for judgment as a matter of law] if the plaintiff presents enough evidence to create a substantial conflict in the evidence on an essential element of the plaintiff's case.”
    2 later decisions 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.