Wayne Block’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110 - Burch v. Regents of the University of California (2006), Stern 00-56431 v. H H H
13 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Auer v. Robbins · Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance v. Fritz Companies, Inc. · Bagdadi v. Nazar · Feist v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“an employee need not be paid for any workweek in which he performs no work.”) . 29 C.F.R. § 778.105 . . See Childers v. City of Eugene, 120 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.1997) (one suspension); Paresi v. City of Portland, 182 F.3d 665, 668 (9th Cir.1999) (two improper suspensions not sufficient to constitute an”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Menkus affidavit appears inadequate under Rule 56(e). Not made on personal knowledge, it did not set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. It is clear from the affidavit that Menkus was not personally involved in any of the disciplinary suspensions, and that he did not personally review any business records containing information regarding such disciplinary suspensions. Menkus instead relied on information from (unsworn) departmental personnel officers, and the source of these officers' information is unclear. Rather than set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, the affidavit was instead based on inadmissible hearsay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ortiz v. Alvarez
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.