Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.3d 999 · 2000
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp. (2001), Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc. (2013)
44 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 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 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Monge v. California · Smith v. Wade
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A jury could ... infer [the defendant] had knowledge of Title VII’s proscriptions, and given this knowledge, reasonably conclude he acted in the face of a perceived risk that his actions would violate federal law.”). 7 . See, e.g., Hardin v. Caterpillar, 227 F.3d 268, 270-71 (5th Cir.2000) (reversing district court’s refusal to issue a punitive damages instruction, noting that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n employee has 'engaged in the most basic form of protected activity when she told her supervisor ... to stop his offensive conduct.' ”) (quoting Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc., 214 F.3d 999, 1007 (8th Cir.2000)); Reed v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1070 (M.D.Tenn.2000) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Kolstad , the Court also stated: [I]n the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents where these decisions are contrary to the employer’s good faith efforts to comply with Title VII .... [Gjiving punitive damages protection to employers who make good-faith efforts to prevent discrimination in the workplace accomplishes Title VII’s objective of motivating employers to detect and deter Title VII violations.”
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.