Moham v. Steego Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
3 F.3d 873 · 1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015
5 federal appellate ·
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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress' decision to define 'employer' to include 'any agent' of an employer ... surely evinces an intent to place some limits on the acts of employees for which employers under Title VII are to be held responsible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action; If the defendant meets this burden by presenting evidence which if believed by the trier of fact would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the action, the presumption raised by the plaintiffs’ prima facie ease essentially disappears; At that point the plaintiffs are left with the ultimate burden of proving that the defendant intentionally discriminated against them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“although the servant would be authorized to do the very act done if it were done for the purpose of serving the master, and although outwardly the act appears to be done on the master’s account. It is the state of the servant’s mind which is material .... Conduct is within the scope of employment only if the servant is actuated to some extent by an intent to serve his master. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 235 cmt. a. 20”
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.