Menoken v. McGettigan’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Haines v. Kerner · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party cannot escape the preclusive effect of [ res judicata ] by raising a different legal theory or seeking a different remedy that was available to her in the prior action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“OPM has exclusive control over the process used to refer applicants to be considered for ALJ positions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“substantially the same as the issue previously litigated”
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.