Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 FRD 423 - Jackson v. Microsoft Corp.

Jackson v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc. · Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors · Halaco Engineering Co. v. Costle · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Colello · Toth v. Trans World Airlines, 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[E]ven assuming that Mr. Jackson has now returned all purloined documents, the damage to Microsoft has been done. Mr. Jackson clearly spent considerable time and attention reading and referring to the items at issue. He sent selected copies to his attorneys, and discussed the documents with at least two additional people. Mr. Jackson’s knowledge of Microsoft’s proprietary information cannot be erased. Some of this proprietary information goes directly to the heart of this litigation. Mr. Jackson had in his possession for ten months memoranda in which Microsoft management discussed with one another, and with counsel, the manner in which they would choose to respond to Mr. Jackson’s allegations of mistreatment by Microsoft. Mr. Jackson also had in his possession for ten months documents regarding the evaluation and compensation of other Microsoft employees. Microsoft has suffered prejudice which can only be cured by dismissal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[P]laintiff has been evasive and untruthful at every turn.... Despite [several opportunities] to come forward and be forthright, [plaintiff] continued to perjure himself. He was once again evasive about [certain relevant issues] and he was patently dishonest about [others]. The Court can conceive of no other sanction [than dismissal] which would promote fairness to all parties in this proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.