Cureton v. Duke’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court may consider any document either attached to or incorporated in the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the underlying claims, including the [age discrimination] and related wrongful termination claims, [were] untimely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cureton v. Nielsen“may not simply rest ... on 'vague or conclusory' evidence.”
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.