Mulhall v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.3d 543 · 2002
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc. (2003)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Catlin v. United States · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o be sure, 'knowledge of a plaintiff's protected activity can be inferred from evidence of the prior interaction of individuals with such knowledge and those taking the adverse employment action'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'flights of fancy, speculations, hunches, intuitions, or rumors.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a plaintiff may survive summary judgment by producing circumstantial evidence to establish' " that the defendant was aware of protected activity in a retaliation case). {¶ 45} Tanksley, however, relies solely on the temporal proximity between his June 16, 2017 OCRC charge and Johns' July 21, 2017 appeal decision to demonstrate the causal connection element of his prima facie case. Ohio courts have held that "although the timing of an employee's termination can contribute to an inference of retaliation to meet the causal connection element * * *, ' "temporal proximity alone is insufficient to support a finding of a causal connection”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tanksley v. Howell
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.