Gorski v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.3d 466 · 2002
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 95 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Noviello v. City of Boston (2005), Marrero v. Goya of Puerto Rico, Inc. (2002)
23 federal appellate · 95 district · 1 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 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)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Hishon v. King & Spalding
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The issue presently before us, however, is not what the plaintiff is required ultimately to prove in order to prevail on her claim, but rather what she is required to plead in order to be permitted to develop her case for eventual adjudication on the merits.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim . . . only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that she ... is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based upon sex; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of plaintiffs employment and create an abusive work environment; (5) that sexually objectionable conduct was both objectively and subjectively offensive, such that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and the victim in fact did perceive it to be so; and (6) that some basis for employer liability has been established.”
4 later decisions 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.