244 F. Supp. 2d 747 - Taylor v. Dam’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 7121
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jurisdictional issues are for the court — not the jury — to decide, whether they hinge on legal or factual determinations.” Id. To determine whether jurisdiction exists, the court will generally resolve any factual disputes from the pleadings and the affidavits submitted by the parties. See Espinoza v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247 , 1248 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1985). The court may also conduct an evidentiary hearing and”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“a district court has broader power to decide its own right to hear the case than it has when the merits of the case are reached.”
3 later decisions 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.