← 279 F.3d 194 - Bailey v. United Airlines

Bailey v. United Airlines’s Empirical Analysis

279 F.3d 194 · 2002

Citation profile

cited by 60 later decisions

states following

September 2018

most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Delaware State College v. Ricks · Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki · Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation State of Alaska v. Boise Cascade Corporation · Grayson v. K Mart Corp. · Jesse Brown, Rev., On Behalf Of Himself And All Members Of The Uptown Coalition For Tobacco Control And Health v. Philip Morris Inc.

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“In a situation where the witness was confused ... or for some other reason misspoke, the subsequent correcting or clarifying affidavit may be sufficient to create a material dispute of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Samuels v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. · Uhiren v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
“show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Halperin v. Moreno (In re Green Field Energy Servs., Inc.) · International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542 v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission
“[A] party cannot create a genuine issue of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment simply by contradicting his or her own previous sworn statement (by, say, filing a later affidavit that flatly contradicts that party's earlier sworn deposition) without explaining the contradiction or attempting to resolve the disparity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Samuels v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

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.