280 F. Supp. 2d 1246 - Caspar v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 702 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company · Nees v. Hocks · Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz · Brooke v. Restaurant Services, Inc. · Lathrop v. ENTERNMANN'S, 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The concept of a wrongful discharge evolved as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine and is designed to provide a remedy for unlawful adverse employment actions where no cause of action for breach of contract would lie. The Colorado courts have expressly disallowed its application where a statute provides a wrongful discharge remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.